I never expressed that I was "happy" with "extra" competition, I just said I thought competition can be a good thing. I'd have thought that was a fairly standard belief in a capitalist society. Apparently not if a competitor is an immigrant.

"The fox has his den. The bee has his hive. The stoat, has, uh... his stoat-hole... but only man chooses to make his nest in an investment opportunity.” Stewart Lee

Surely you'd agree that the best circumstance isn't too much competition or no competition, it's something in between. The reason I objected in the first place to the notion that competition was bad is because there's clearly a level at which it's healthy.

Where we differ is that you believe that we're some point towards a "large group of sados scrambling" as a result of there being too many workers available, but i'd contend that most of the problems you point to occur in areas even where workers are relatively scarce.

In the job I'm currently working in for example, there are plenty of people willing and able to do my job instead of me, but i'm on a long term contract and my trade union is recognised and regularly consulted. In my previous job there weren't many people looking to take my place but I had no contract and no job security. Ultimately terms and conditions come down to the employer, not the supply of employees.

"The fox has his den. The bee has his hive. The stoat, has, uh... his stoat-hole... but only man chooses to make his nest in an investment opportunity.” Stewart Lee

Like most people the situation I would regard as fair is an economy which provided enough well paid jobs to provide people a reasonable standard of living.

That means maintaining a balance between number of jobs and possible workers for them......Something this country is absolutely useless at doing.

We have a balance that is too hard for low and semi skilled workers and I'm saying that one of the reasons for that (not the only one) is that we are gaining a new population roughly the size of Southampton every year......Not all but most of those immigrants will be on the low to semi skilled areas and hence the areas that they will settle in will be affected by increased populations over and above what existed before.

Sorry Horsey what are those areas immigrants are settling in 'where workers are scarce'? Implicitly you're saying that where they are going isn't going to cause problems.

I was a teacher in Wisbech for five years..An area that you are maybe unknowingly talking about..I taught many a British college student next to an Eastern European....I can tell you that these British kids knew very well that they would be competing for jobs in town with these immigrants and more than a few weren't happy about it...And I didn't blame them...Their own government was breaking that unspoken contract that should exist between the state and subject/citizen (I work for you and you work for me). Because they are the weakest and most vulnerable they didn't matter.....Many bosses wouldn't even take on British kids when given the choice...That's the practical outcome of the idealism you support.

Too much immigration matters wherever you put it.....It's bleeding obvious that too many new people have a negative affect upon the existing population in terms of housing, jobs and community.

Immigrants tend to flock to areas that contain immigrant populations as we know the affect around the country isn't spread evenly....It means that British workers will face an uneven and unfair situation in those areas....Again that is the outcome of the idealism that you have supported.....Sure I don't believe you meant it but that is the practical outcome.

You saying that, if we used all the housing or if we did this differently or that is pure cop out. None of the main governments will do any of those things. So supporting the EU's open door policy directly leads to attacking the life chances of working class British workers already here.

So much for Labour in power.

Edited by Stirlingsays (11 May 2014 1.14pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

I'd suggest that's achievable irrespective of the rates of immigration we have experienced and are experiencing in the UK.

This is something the country has been useless at doing for a number of decades, even when immigration was at relatively low levels. There wasn't much immigration in the 70s or 80s and yet successive governments oversaw mass unemployment and industrial decline.

I'm not saying immigrants are settling in areas where workers are relatively scarce, I'm saying that even in areas where they're not added to the pool of workers social problems persist and are in some cases even worse.

At the risk of making broad generalisations, I think it's fair to say that the most popular areas for immigrants are London and the South East. Areas like the South West and the North East are less popular.

Yet there are more jobs in London than anywhere else in the country and average pay is higher, whilst the reverse is true in the North East. London has more hospitals, many good schools, excellent transport links and so on.

Since the economic recovery started to take hold, 80% of the new jobs created were in London, meaning that in other regions unemployment actually went up even though in the country as a whole it was in decline.

And I think it's also bleeding obvious that they have a positive affect upon the economy and the state of public services that more than cancels any negative effects.

It would if immigration exacerbated government ineptness at dealing with social problems. But I don't believe it does. I'd say over the last century, the times when we have had the lowest levels of immigration have been the periods during which government was most ineffective at helping the majority of its citizens prosper (70s and 80s).

"The fox has his den. The bee has his hive. The stoat, has, uh... his stoat-hole... but only man chooses to make his nest in an investment opportunity.” Stewart Lee

Putting aside the macroeconomics for a second, I have a few questions for you, White Horse.

(They are genuine questions, not loaded ones trying to get you to say things I can pounce on. I'm interested in your view.)

1. Do you accept that there are some negative social consequences of immigration? (ie, consequences which are caused by immigration and not just blamed on it like, say, housing shortages)

2. DO you accept the following premise: everyone will be happier and more prosperous if immigrants integrate into their host culture.

3. Given the unprecedented scale of the latest wave of immigration (ie, the last ten to fifteen years) how likely is it that these immigrants will integrate into the host culture and what will this integration look like?

4. If immigration were to continue on a similar scale, how likely do you think that "integration" will actually mean a radical transformation of the prevailing culture within a generation or two?

5. Do you think it is legitimate for people to be concerned and even resistant to the prospect of that transformation?

Ok, questions (4) and (5) are a bit loaded, but I'd still be interested in your answers.

...we must expand...get more pupils...so that the knowledge will spread...

I think immigration probably makes it harder for society to act as a cohesive unit because cultural differences and the absence of some shared experiences exposes the nation as an imagined community.

I think that depends on the culture of the host and the immigrant. Some elements of culture are almost always a good idea to integrate into; learning the language, obeying basic moral rules, etc.

I think it's a bit like a new signing at a football team. Learn the language, obey the rules of the club and so on, but don't abandon everything that made you a good footballer before. Keep making curry, for example.

I think integration is inevitable over time, since it's pretty difficult to spend time within a society without being influenced by social norms, language and so on. Obviously there will be some exceptions, but I'd imagine any community that closes itself off from the rest of society will start to suffer over time.

In a crude multicultural melting pot analogy, imagine someone's making a nice chocolate mousse and throws in a few extra ingredients. A lump of sugar, some milk, a marshmallow. Practically speaking it may take a while, but at the end of the process the mousse isn't radically different from how it was at the start because 99% of the ingredients remained the same.

I think prevailing cultures are always changing, so it's difficult to define what constitutes radical change, but I think it's unlikely that an "external culture" would be able to affect the original culture profoundly unless there were significant parallels to begin with.

Look at the resistance to Islam in the UK, for example. There are pretty strong parallels between Islam and Christianity and Muslims have been here for decades, so you'd think it might get some traction. But people are livid that someone's prayed at a cow before it ended up on their pizza.

If people like something and it's changing, it's legitimate to be concerned about it, but as a liberal I like to think that people should be allowed to do what they want without harming others.

Boycotting Pizza Express because it uses halal meat, for example, I have no issue with. Having St George's Day as a national holiday to reinforce national identity once a year, fine. Banning burkhas, not on.

"The fox has his den. The bee has his hive. The stoat, has, uh... his stoat-hole... but only man chooses to make his nest in an investment opportunity.” Stewart Lee