This is a classic example of Mail sexism. A British male wins, he’s a hero. A British female wins, and it’s used as an excuse to make out how crap women are. It really staggers me that the Mail’s readership is largely female – it’s so utterly patronising to women, it’s incredible.
I’m surprised the Mail consider Elena Baltacha British, daughter of the legendary (well in Ipswich at least) Ukranian footballer Sergei Baltacha. Wait until she loses….
No doubt some of you will use the pensions issue as an excuse to try and justify further mass immgration. But we’ve had mass immigration for a decade now and the pensions problem has grown steadily worse. Millions of those who have come here will stay on to claim state pensions themselves. And as most of them are on low incomes anyway it is unlikely that their payments will match what they will claim. So the ‘they’ll pay our pensions’ argument for immigration is as bogus as all the others.
Immigrants largely have nothing whatsoever to do with pensions, they are too young, other than their taxes on income & spending helping to pay for them, of course.
You’re getting your messages mixed.
I thought you and your BNP mates were against foreigners coming in and taking all the jobs?
Or have you slid back to pretending they are all welfare spongers now we’re in a recession?
You’re became a silly caricature some time ago, you know.
BTW….what “further mass immigration”, exactly, is it you’re referring to?
Maybe you’d like to explain how the only notable recent immigration (predominantly young workers from eastern Europe) coming because of the EU freedom of movement laws only work against ‘us’?
They work, they pay taxes on income and spending……and have decades to go until (in the unlikely event of them staying) they can hope for a pension of pitiable value.
Please, explain how that one works and how come you think it’s something unaffordable & scary…..the floor is yours.
Forget how big money & big business is screwing those at the bottom and in the middle (whilst black-mailing our Govs to spend stunningly vast sums on their welfare/bail-outs).
How is the headline news that British players did badly? Only one player lost a match they would be expected to win. They really want to bring out bad news when it’s a tragedy that 305-ranked players on a wildcard lose to former world number 4s.
Mail Man, EU freedom of movement laws generally work against us Britons because Britain is much wealthier than countries such as Poland and Romania. England is overcrowded enough as it is.
I was watching a bit of Wimbledon last night and the presenter (Jon Champion?) was suggesting that in a few years’ time, almost all of the competitors could* be from Russia and other Eastern European countries.
Can’t wait to see the DM if/when that happens!!!
* And I mean “could”, as in “it’s a possibility”. Not in the DM way, where “could” means “will”.
The ‘96% of final salary pensions are doomed’ isn’t exactly news. Final salaries are an awfully outdated model of savings which only rewarded top earners who stuck with the same job for years on end, in a time when people lived a far shorter existence after retirement.
And yes, that’s nothing to do with mass migration.
Sorry to burst your bubble but seeing as most immigrants come here when they’re young and the ‘native’ population aren’t having as many kids, these immigrants working are the only thing stopping the whole pension system collapsing now. It seems you have a problem with logic so I’ll try to explain it better.
If the immigrants don’t come, then as the population here gets older and retires (primarily the baby boomers), you have a massive pensions gap, but seeing as these boomers didn’t have many kids, there aren’t enough people working and paying taxes to fill in the gap. This problem is bad enough with immigrants, imagine what it would be like without them.
@Mail Man, Shafiq etc…Large numbers of immgrants are still pouring into this overcrowded island. The population continues to grow and most of them will stay here, meaning millions more people claiming pensions! The way to solve the pensions problem is to solve our indigenous unemployment problem, as follows: drastic controls on immigration so as to force employers to hire locals (and if that means leaving the EU, so be it); much better training for the many unemployed; generous inducements to married women with children to stay at home, thus creating millions of job vacancies. Unemployment solved, pension problem solved!
@Dai…more sneering from you. You like sneering don’t you? Well, I suppose it saves the laborious task of having to do some thinking instead!
“But we’ve had mass immigration for a decade now….”
I know DM readers live in a different time period to the rest of us, but the Romans invaded a couple of millennia ago, the Vikings a few hundred after that, and the Normans nearly a thousand years ago.
Bloody Ukrainians, coming over here and stealing jobs from hardworking British tennis players. Don’t let the foreigners in I say – then the Brits would always win Wimbledon (no-one to beat em).
So basically your solution is to force a huge chunk of the population (sorry, offer “generous inducements”) to stay at home to create more jobs in tandem with forcing immigrants to leave and prevent more coming, and you assume that all vacancies (both those already existing and those created by mass enforced resignation) can be filled perfectly with the remaining people available as long as you train them and strongarm companies into employing them?
Ok, so please answer the following:
Who’s going to pay for all this training (and bear in mind that a lot of jobs that immigrants fill are very skilled positions such as doctors, nurses, IT engineers etc., and a lot of married women with kids have pretty high-powered jobs you don’t just walk in to – we could be looking at YEARS before someone is ready to go in to a job even at the bottom rung)?
Who is going to fill these gaps in jobs in the meantime, given that no immigrant or woman is going to bother doing so on the proviso they know because of the rules they will be turfed out as soon as possible, so it is likely they will up sticks and leave sooner rather than later? Do you intend to force people top stay in their jobs until such a time as it is convenient to fire them and replace them?
How will companies pay the vast redundancy/payoff fees that such a system would require, or do you simply expect people to leave their jobs to give to someone else happily?
What happens when small companies go under because they can’t employ people they need and are forced to employ considerably less competent people who don’t suit the job and hence cannot effectively compete globally or perhaps even locally? What are your plans to support the economy here and those who become unemployed as a result, and who will pay for it given there will be far more out of work?
What do you do if sufficient numbers of people don’t want to do the job they’ve been earmarked for (or if you’re a lady you don’t want to stay at home)? Force them to do so?
Given many homes will no longer have a second income, childcare benefit costs will rocket (as well as the cost of your generous incentives). As these people will no longer be paying tax on their wages, where is all the extra money to pay them off coming from?
What happens years down the line where you have all these people reaching pension age but you’ve had a massive shortfall in payments in to the system – perhaps for decades -because you had a long period with millions unemployed while they were retrained, millions of vacancies where women and immigrants had to leave their jobs, and hundreds of companies going to the wall or struggling because they either had significant chunks of their workforce leave/couldn’t hire suitable new replacements based on merit so the economy of the country was crippled? Where is the extra money going to come from? Are you going to have a massive tax hike to cover this? Do you not think it likely people will not vote for a party that promises this?
Even if the above events ever occurred, do you REALLY think the British populace would be willing to stick with a government that was actively and deliberately crippling the economy for perhaps decades, with a requirement for vast extra taxation to cover the associated costs (unless you plan to just print more money) so that such policies could be enforced? Do you also think that the not insignificant numbers of the population that you repress by denying them choice (women, employers) would not perhaps vote for someone alternative who offered them that choice?
Your idea appears to ignore three key things: the massive cash gap caused by such draconian measures, the massive skills gap created by denying jobs to people who can fill those jobs simply because you don’t like where they come from or what sex they are, and the massive assumption that – even if you were successful in getting rid of all immigrants and pushing the vast majority of women in the workforce out to be housewives – anyone can do any job and will do so willingly as long as you send them on the right course, and that everyone would be tickety boo under a system that by its very definition is restrictive to everyone apart from Caucasian men.
If you actually believe the above would be successful, let alone viable, then you, sir, are an idiot.
I thought we still had a pension crisis even when we were near full employment. Don’t really see what a million more tax payers will provide when people have to retire at 70, especially when the country is in so much debt. Is there a version of Cassandra who was just plain wrong but would not shut up? Chicken Licken? DaveyP? Oh, and that Brazen Bigamist looks like she’d get on with John Leslie real well.
The pensions crisis is just something I’m coming to accept. The simple fact is that by the time I come to retire in 30 or so years time, my pension will be worth tuppence ha’penny and the state pension, if it still exists, will be worth even less. There’s nothing I can do about that – whatever happens, I’m sure I’m going to get screwed over, but it’s not by immigrants – it’s by the financial industry, the biggest bunch of crooks ever. We should be attacking them, not ordinary people just trying to get on with their lives.
You have one minor flaw in your argument, which is one many anti-immigration people use: Getting rid of immigrants would do nothing to solve the unemployment problem.
It has been tried before, when Idi Amin thought getting rid of all the Indians would mean that the native Africans would be able to run the businesses for themselves – unfortunately, Uganda’s economy nosedived and we benefited by taking in all these people, most of whom are not net-tax-paying millionaires – Karma.
Similarly, during the last recession, many European governments decided to forced early retirement to try and solve the youth unemployment problem. Instead, these governments lost vital skills that were now irreplaceable and it slowed down recovery.
Even if you sealed off Britain’s borders and prevented all-comers from entering the country, there would still be unemployment and people receiving Job Seeker’s Allowance or suchlike. This would be due to the natural rate of unemployment. It could never be zero.
Immigration probably doesn’t make much difference to the coming pensions crisis – the whole system is a Ponzi scheme anyway.
@ Ron Piss et al…I never said people already here should be forced out. Nor did I say that women should be forced to stay at home. But many women WOULD prefer to stay at home with their kids, I’ve seen surveys in the Mail which show this, although I haven’t got any to hand at the moment.
I believe that the measures I advocate are viable although they would undoubtedly take time to work and might require the creation of a semi-socialist siege economy. And you can stuff globalisation just as much as mass immigration. I make no secret of it, I want Britain to become a local country for local people. I look forward to the day when Royston Vazey replaces London as the capital city!
I’ve seen surveys in the Mail that show eating a watermelon during a full moon will guarantee you won’t get cancer. And I believe that about as much as any other survey they claim shows something that suits them (i.e. not much). I bet just as many women who have to stay home because of their circumstances would actually like to go out to work, but if you don’t ask that question too of the right people it’s easy to claim a result that doesn’t really exist because you’ve not looked at the whole picture.
Still, fair play to admitting your idea won’t work in the real world – which is pretty much what you’ve done given there’s no way the majority of voters would ever accept a siege situation, no would immigrants hang about to fill jobs nicely for you until such time as you can boot ‘em out. There’s been a global economy (note: not the same things as globalisation) for centuries, and Britain needs it a lot more than it needs us.
To conclude though, let’s have a look at some examples. The USA, a country that is built on immigration and free, global trade, went from not existing to the most powerful nation on Earth in a matter of a few hundred years. North Korea, probably the most isolationist, inward-looking nation on Earth, is a backwards, poverty-stricken hell-hole run by a corrupt dictator and his cronies.
You want people to willingly go for option 2. That’s not gonna ever happen, is it love? And if it did, you’d probably hate it just as much as everyone else. Because in the grand scheme of things, having a few Polish plumbers knocking about is a darn sight better than being forced to be a subsistence farmer living on turnips and waiting to die young because no one can afford decent healthcare.
Might as well fucking kill myself then.
Ellen Belatcha is a 25 year old woman taking part in the women’s tournament. Not quite sure why this makes her a “girl”.
This is a classic example of Mail sexism. A British male wins, he’s a hero. A British female wins, and it’s used as an excuse to make out how crap women are. It really staggers me that the Mail’s readership is largely female – it’s so utterly patronising to women, it’s incredible.
I’m surprised the Mail consider Elena Baltacha British, daughter of the legendary (well in Ipswich at least) Ukranian footballer Sergei Baltacha. Wait until she loses….
No doubt some of you will use the pensions issue as an excuse to try and justify further mass immgration. But we’ve had mass immigration for a decade now and the pensions problem has grown steadily worse. Millions of those who have come here will stay on to claim state pensions themselves. And as most of them are on low incomes anyway it is unlikely that their payments will match what they will claim. So the ‘they’ll pay our pensions’ argument for immigration is as bogus as all the others.
Kudos for @daveyp for continually arguing with people he has imagined are talking to him.
You tell those disembodied voices, mate! Ignore the doctors…
daveyp
Immigrants largely have nothing whatsoever to do with pensions, they are too young, other than their taxes on income & spending helping to pay for them, of course.
You’re getting your messages mixed.
I thought you and your BNP mates were against foreigners coming in and taking all the jobs?
Or have you slid back to pretending they are all welfare spongers now we’re in a recession?
You’re became a silly caricature some time ago, you know.
BTW….what “further mass immigration”, exactly, is it you’re referring to?
Maybe you’d like to explain how the only notable recent immigration (predominantly young workers from eastern Europe) coming because of the EU freedom of movement laws only work against ‘us’?
They work, they pay taxes on income and spending……and have decades to go until (in the unlikely event of them staying) they can hope for a pension of pitiable value.
Please, explain how that one works and how come you think it’s something unaffordable & scary…..the floor is yours.
Typical BNP right-wing misdirection BS.
Forget how big money & big business is screwing those at the bottom and in the middle (whilst black-mailing our Govs to spend stunningly vast sums on their welfare/bail-outs).
Na mate, it’s all them foreigners.
Jeeezus wept.
How is the headline news that British players did badly? Only one player lost a match they would be expected to win. They really want to bring out bad news when it’s a tragedy that 305-ranked players on a wildcard lose to former world number 4s.
Quite right DaveyP.
Mail Man, EU freedom of movement laws generally work against us Britons because Britain is much wealthier than countries such as Poland and Romania. England is overcrowded enough as it is.
You know what else we’ve had for a decade? Spongebob Squarepants. It makes about as much sense to blame him for the pension situation.
I was watching a bit of Wimbledon last night and the presenter (Jon Champion?) was suggesting that in a few years’ time, almost all of the competitors could* be from Russia and other Eastern European countries.
Can’t wait to see the DM if/when that happens!!!
* And I mean “could”, as in “it’s a possibility”. Not in the DM way, where “could” means “will”.
The ‘96% of final salary pensions are doomed’ isn’t exactly news. Final salaries are an awfully outdated model of savings which only rewarded top earners who stuck with the same job for years on end, in a time when people lived a far shorter existence after retirement.
And yes, that’s nothing to do with mass migration.
Well judging from the picture of the bigamist, I’d hazard a guess at “A decent pair of chebs and a filthy smile”, but maybe that’s just me.
Jeez, the men she married are fugly though…
“And as most of them are on low incomes anyway it is unlikely that their payments will match what they will claim.”
Really? Are you sure about that.
Not Well done or Good on You Girl but “Shock”
And they say the Labour is doing down Britain.
That saucy bigamist reminds me of Renee Zellweger. I wonder if she’s married five times too.
DaveyP,
Sorry to burst your bubble but seeing as most immigrants come here when they’re young and the ‘native’ population aren’t having as many kids, these immigrants working are the only thing stopping the whole pension system collapsing now. It seems you have a problem with logic so I’ll try to explain it better.
If the immigrants don’t come, then as the population here gets older and retires (primarily the baby boomers), you have a massive pensions gap, but seeing as these boomers didn’t have many kids, there aren’t enough people working and paying taxes to fill in the gap. This problem is bad enough with immigrants, imagine what it would be like without them.
@Mail Man, Shafiq etc…Large numbers of immgrants are still pouring into this overcrowded island. The population continues to grow and most of them will stay here, meaning millions more people claiming pensions! The way to solve the pensions problem is to solve our indigenous unemployment problem, as follows: drastic controls on immigration so as to force employers to hire locals (and if that means leaving the EU, so be it); much better training for the many unemployed; generous inducements to married women with children to stay at home, thus creating millions of job vacancies. Unemployment solved, pension problem solved!
@Dai…more sneering from you. You like sneering don’t you? Well, I suppose it saves the laborious task of having to do some thinking instead!
“But we’ve had mass immigration for a decade now….”
I know DM readers live in a different time period to the rest of us, but the Romans invaded a couple of millennia ago, the Vikings a few hundred after that, and the Normans nearly a thousand years ago.
daveyp
Tired olf recycled BNP rhetoric, slogans & waffling is not an answer to the points put.
You fail, badly, yet again.
Good luck trying to get a majority agreeing to leaving the EU.
Sheer insanity.
Bloody Ukrainians, coming over here and stealing jobs from hardworking British tennis players. Don’t let the foreigners in I say – then the Brits would always win Wimbledon (no-one to beat em).
@daveyp
So basically your solution is to force a huge chunk of the population (sorry, offer “generous inducements”) to stay at home to create more jobs in tandem with forcing immigrants to leave and prevent more coming, and you assume that all vacancies (both those already existing and those created by mass enforced resignation) can be filled perfectly with the remaining people available as long as you train them and strongarm companies into employing them?
Ok, so please answer the following:
Who’s going to pay for all this training (and bear in mind that a lot of jobs that immigrants fill are very skilled positions such as doctors, nurses, IT engineers etc., and a lot of married women with kids have pretty high-powered jobs you don’t just walk in to – we could be looking at YEARS before someone is ready to go in to a job even at the bottom rung)?
Who is going to fill these gaps in jobs in the meantime, given that no immigrant or woman is going to bother doing so on the proviso they know because of the rules they will be turfed out as soon as possible, so it is likely they will up sticks and leave sooner rather than later? Do you intend to force people top stay in their jobs until such a time as it is convenient to fire them and replace them?
How will companies pay the vast redundancy/payoff fees that such a system would require, or do you simply expect people to leave their jobs to give to someone else happily?
What happens when small companies go under because they can’t employ people they need and are forced to employ considerably less competent people who don’t suit the job and hence cannot effectively compete globally or perhaps even locally? What are your plans to support the economy here and those who become unemployed as a result, and who will pay for it given there will be far more out of work?
What do you do if sufficient numbers of people don’t want to do the job they’ve been earmarked for (or if you’re a lady you don’t want to stay at home)? Force them to do so?
Given many homes will no longer have a second income, childcare benefit costs will rocket (as well as the cost of your generous incentives). As these people will no longer be paying tax on their wages, where is all the extra money to pay them off coming from?
What happens years down the line where you have all these people reaching pension age but you’ve had a massive shortfall in payments in to the system – perhaps for decades -because you had a long period with millions unemployed while they were retrained, millions of vacancies where women and immigrants had to leave their jobs, and hundreds of companies going to the wall or struggling because they either had significant chunks of their workforce leave/couldn’t hire suitable new replacements based on merit so the economy of the country was crippled? Where is the extra money going to come from? Are you going to have a massive tax hike to cover this? Do you not think it likely people will not vote for a party that promises this?
Even if the above events ever occurred, do you REALLY think the British populace would be willing to stick with a government that was actively and deliberately crippling the economy for perhaps decades, with a requirement for vast extra taxation to cover the associated costs (unless you plan to just print more money) so that such policies could be enforced? Do you also think that the not insignificant numbers of the population that you repress by denying them choice (women, employers) would not perhaps vote for someone alternative who offered them that choice?
Your idea appears to ignore three key things: the massive cash gap caused by such draconian measures, the massive skills gap created by denying jobs to people who can fill those jobs simply because you don’t like where they come from or what sex they are, and the massive assumption that – even if you were successful in getting rid of all immigrants and pushing the vast majority of women in the workforce out to be housewives – anyone can do any job and will do so willingly as long as you send them on the right course, and that everyone would be tickety boo under a system that by its very definition is restrictive to everyone apart from Caucasian men.
If you actually believe the above would be successful, let alone viable, then you, sir, are an idiot.
I thought we still had a pension crisis even when we were near full employment. Don’t really see what a million more tax payers will provide when people have to retire at 70, especially when the country is in so much debt. Is there a version of Cassandra who was just plain wrong but would not shut up? Chicken Licken? DaveyP? Oh, and that Brazen Bigamist looks like she’d get on with John Leslie real well.
The pensions crisis is just something I’m coming to accept. The simple fact is that by the time I come to retire in 30 or so years time, my pension will be worth tuppence ha’penny and the state pension, if it still exists, will be worth even less. There’s nothing I can do about that – whatever happens, I’m sure I’m going to get screwed over, but it’s not by immigrants – it’s by the financial industry, the biggest bunch of crooks ever. We should be attacking them, not ordinary people just trying to get on with their lives.
@ DaveyP: “Unemployment solved, pension problem solved!”
Please can we see your working for this, i.e. the detailed maths and research behind your conclusions? Thanks.
@DaveyP
You have one minor flaw in your argument, which is one many anti-immigration people use: Getting rid of immigrants would do nothing to solve the unemployment problem.
It has been tried before, when Idi Amin thought getting rid of all the Indians would mean that the native Africans would be able to run the businesses for themselves – unfortunately, Uganda’s economy nosedived and we benefited by taking in all these people, most of whom are not net-tax-paying millionaires – Karma.
Similarly, during the last recession, many European governments decided to forced early retirement to try and solve the youth unemployment problem. Instead, these governments lost vital skills that were now irreplaceable and it slowed down recovery.
@DaveyP No, I just like sneering at you. You amuse me greatly.
Even if you sealed off Britain’s borders and prevented all-comers from entering the country, there would still be unemployment and people receiving Job Seeker’s Allowance or suchlike. This would be due to the natural rate of unemployment. It could never be zero.
Immigration probably doesn’t make much difference to the coming pensions crisis – the whole system is a Ponzi scheme anyway.
@ Ron Piss et al…I never said people already here should be forced out. Nor did I say that women should be forced to stay at home. But many women WOULD prefer to stay at home with their kids, I’ve seen surveys in the Mail which show this, although I haven’t got any to hand at the moment.
I believe that the measures I advocate are viable although they would undoubtedly take time to work and might require the creation of a semi-socialist siege economy. And you can stuff globalisation just as much as mass immigration. I make no secret of it, I want Britain to become a local country for local people. I look forward to the day when Royston Vazey replaces London as the capital city!
@daveyp
“I’ve seen surveys in the Mail which show this”
I’ve seen surveys in the Mail that show eating a watermelon during a full moon will guarantee you won’t get cancer. And I believe that about as much as any other survey they claim shows something that suits them (i.e. not much). I bet just as many women who have to stay home because of their circumstances would actually like to go out to work, but if you don’t ask that question too of the right people it’s easy to claim a result that doesn’t really exist because you’ve not looked at the whole picture.
Still, fair play to admitting your idea won’t work in the real world – which is pretty much what you’ve done given there’s no way the majority of voters would ever accept a siege situation, no would immigrants hang about to fill jobs nicely for you until such time as you can boot ‘em out. There’s been a global economy (note: not the same things as globalisation) for centuries, and Britain needs it a lot more than it needs us.
To conclude though, let’s have a look at some examples. The USA, a country that is built on immigration and free, global trade, went from not existing to the most powerful nation on Earth in a matter of a few hundred years. North Korea, probably the most isolationist, inward-looking nation on Earth, is a backwards, poverty-stricken hell-hole run by a corrupt dictator and his cronies.
You want people to willingly go for option 2. That’s not gonna ever happen, is it love? And if it did, you’d probably hate it just as much as everyone else. Because in the grand scheme of things, having a few Polish plumbers knocking about is a darn sight better than being forced to be a subsistence farmer living on turnips and waiting to die young because no one can afford decent healthcare.
daveyp.
June 25th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
“I make no secret of it, I want Britain to become a local country for local people.”
You mean a paranoid dead museum state full of twisted paranoid people who at least know their place and have nothing to do with outsiders?
Yeah, I know you’re kidding (kinda) but go on, admit it, secretly that’s exactly what you’d like & feel more comfortable with.
Shame a (vast) majority of the rest of us will never go for it though, eh?