Consequences - by Richard... Friday, March 16, 2012

Consequences - by Richard... Friday, March 16, 2012

For too long, we have had successive governments blathering about the economics of immigration, suggesting that there is a net benefit - a delusion to which the previous administration wasparticularly prone, aided and abetted by the BBC.

As we noted recently, though, past claims of benefits downplay the effects on the infrastructure, with the likes of water supply difficulties arising in part through the extra demand. Now we see reported another part of the same problem, with increased pressure on our education system. It too is failing to cope with the population growth.

It seems to me that the government has being playing the usual "fast one" (I'm shocked, I tell you!), talking up the economic benefits while playing down the costs.

But the fact of the matter is that if you import an extra seven million people (net – ass a loose estimate), that is going to have an impact on the infrastructure, with significant cost implications. According to one estimate, costs to the NHS from dealing with illegal immigration alone run to £5.5 billion annually.

Here and elsewhere, we have another example of one set getting the benefits and the people paying the price. But not only do employers benefit from reduced labour costs – the government takes its cut through taxation, from the increased economic activity. Then it short-changes us when it comes to dealing with the consequences of increasing population.

Five years ago, the cost of immigration was put at almost £8.8 billion a year which, over term, given inadequate and deferred expenditure, means that we must have built up a cumulative deficit amounting to tens of billions.

This is typical of the approach of government to the management of our finances. One only has to look at the recent report on the road maintenance programme, where money is freely extracted from motorists, but not put back. They take now – we pay more later.

Without even intending to, therefore, we are drifting into Referism territory. Whatever the reservations some might have about giving people more power, it is inconceivable that the rule of the people could be worse than the standard offered by our current rulers. If there is going to be abuse of power, it is best that we do it to ourselves

COMMENT THREAD

Share

Print ready

Macho morons - by Richard...

It was on 17 August 2009 that I finally concluded that the mission on Afghanistan was doomed, and that the only sensible option was to bring our troops home. At the time, we had suffered 200 casualties, with The Guardian describing our adventure as "Mission Impossible". And you didn't have to be there, or have been there, to work it out.

But Ben Anderson has been there, and has come to the same conclusion. He could have stayed at home, although he would not then have been a "respected" journalist and documentary-maker. TheEconomist has stayed at home, however, and it effectively reaches that conclusion as well. Furthermore, it has joined just about everybody else in drawing the obvious conclusion, whether "respected" or not.

Only two people on this planet seem unable to see it: the terrible twins (in suits this time). They want to make out that the expedition has achieved something, and can be drawn to a coherent end – thus elevating self-delusion to new heights.

I suppose we are in new territory here, when these two so-called leaders are on a completely different planet. They can't in fact be called "leaders" as they are just pathetic creatures trapped in a make-believe world which dictates that they should go on pretending they are achieving something, because to say otherwise would be to admit failure.

That's what this is really all about – two macho morons who can't admit to themselves that they are doing the wrong things, and cut their losses. And for that, men must die and fortunes must be spent. "Mad" doesn't even get close.