Quelle surprise - we’ve become so used to NuLabor™ lying to us, we’ve almost become immune to it.
First, it was a maximum of 13,000 migrants from Eastern Europe.
Then, they found a few missing hundred thousand. Then it was 800,000. Now it’s 1.1 million.
But this morning, it was OK, because most of the new jobs NuLabor™ had fictioned up had been filled by the British Workforce. But didn’t take someone long to find the lies, and forced the gov to make further admissions:

On Monday, Labour said 800,000 - or 30% - of the 2.7 million jobs created had been taken by migrant workers.
But it later put out a clarification suggesting 52% - or 1.1 million - of new jobs created had gone to migrants.
Then in a further correction, it said the wrong population estimates had been used to calculate the percentage of new jobs taken by migrants.

It’s just lie after lie after lie after lie. These aren’t mistakes, these are dirty rotten lies.
And here are the liers - have a listen:
In the morning…

But by the evening …

I think it’s best summed up on BBC’s Have Your Say

It’s strange how they have no idea how many immigrants are working here yet they “know” exactly how much they contribute to the economy. We’re being lied to.

A few more factoids:

Mass-migration means broken promises, child labour, human trafficking and general misery.

Here’s another one

Immigration is placing increased pressure on services such as schools and hospitals, a report has claimed. The Local Government Association is calling for a £250m-a-year fund to help regions struggling to cope with unexpected influx

Maybe you’d prefer something from The Guardian?

The council leaders of Slough, Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea, and Hammersmith and Fulham say the “improved” method of calculating immigration, introduced last month, does not “remotely” represent the true picture on the ground.

Richard Stokes, leader of Slough Borough Council, said poor migration statistics were already leading to severe underfunding.

How about a quote from Workpermit.com, which appear to have a pro-immigration stance - even they can’t square everything:

Statistics from the report show the influx of workers had probably pushed up unemployment by 0.3 percentage points - or roughly a third of the overall increase over that period. It said more than six out of 10 migrants from “New Europe” were in basic-level jobs.

Or this article from MSN Money which tries to be positives, but concludes that

Of course many other things must be factored into the final analysis. Some economists have stated that the new arrivals have forced down wages while forcing up social costs like housing and schooling.

Proper analysis demonstrates the situation is not nearly so clear-cut and that many factors make the exact economic conclusions quite debatable. These must include the levels of crime committed by immigrants; in at least one London prison roughly half the inmates are foreign-born.

Or maybe something from Economics UK?

Bob Rowthorn, emeritus professor of economics at Cambridge, argues that the economic benefits of immigration, to the extent that they exist, are “minor” and “transient”.

In the meantime, he suggests, “the interests of more vulnerable sections of the domestic population may well be damaged, and any economic benefits are unlikely to bear comparison with its substantial impact on population growth”.

It would be good to be able to refute this with proof that the economic benefits of migration are large and overwhelming. So far, however, that proof does not exist.

More bloggage here and here

Discuss!

Categories: Politics