Your Coffee House

Banquosghost

So what you are saying is you never read the replies to the original threads and now want exasperated people to repeat themselves

Rhoda Klapp

Remember that plot you had? Can you remember where you put it?

Dennis Churchill

I look forward to seeing MigrationWatch’s response.

Tiberius

I should like to see more black coffee on offer, Fraser, rather than the milky, sugary mix is that often served up.

Somebody told me

I would like more of the analytical posts (such as the ones on academics and cuts) usually done by Fraser and Daniel. I am also a fan of these new 'right to response' posts as they let us get another view on the same facts and figures.

Simon Stephenson.

I'm impressed by the way Andrew Lilico has dealt with this post over at the Telegraph:-

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/andrewlilico/100011763/vickers-ringfencing-proposals-have-already-been-overtaken-by-events/

He's written the article, and then engaged with the commenters, clarifying his positions, correcting some of the falsities, and re-directing some of the commenters to what he actually wrote, and away from what his opponents assume him to have written in order to be able to make a meaty criticism.

But the Telegraph comments system has the facility to reply to specific comments, and for the reply to be shown indented immediately below the original comment. I'm not sure that "comments on comments" works very well without this facility, yet I think that done properly it's far more instructive than a purely time-based comments system.

Archibald

I enjoyed both articles Fraser. To combat some of the postings with regards to the interests of balance, perhaps on some occasions you could remove yourself from the mix or act as more of a summarizer after the two have gone head to head. That way you could have one view from one supposed 'team', and another view from another. Or at the very least give yourself a right of reply to the articles. Other than that, excellent.

I would also go along with the suggestion of more engagement that Simon Stephenson has posted, even if this sort of engagement isn't always from the contributor themselves, but someone who could keep the debate going.

Finally, (and I am disappointed find myself doubting this post will feature given my last couple haven't) I really do think that if you're not going to rise to a challenge following persistent polite queries, you should at least have the decency to reply when they are posted on the wall that is for the purpose of communicating with the CH team. To not do so is jolly poor show. Following many polite attempts, even my increasingly cheeky attempts to get you to engage in a proper debate have not even had a reply.

London Calling

by…

Jonathan Portes Director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research and former chief economist at the Cabinet Office.

Myths abound when it comes to the effect of immigration on the labour market — and the most damaging of these is that most or all “new jobs” go to migrants. Although I agree with Fraser Nelson's general views on immigration, he is misleading on this one point.

So what did (and does) Fraser mean?...

And there are more problems with Fraser's recent post on all this…

The problem is that this is just assertion; there’s no evidence. Fraser is just wrong to suggest that the good economic times did not benefit British workers…

Right to reply…
Migration watch UK

Economic benefit
10. Clearly some migrants bring economic benefit to the UK but, taken as a whole, what they add to production is counter balanced by their addition to the population. The only major inquiry ever conducted in the UK was carried out by the Select Committee on Economic Affairs of the House of Lords in 2007/08. In April 2008 they reported that "We have found no evidence for the argument, made by the government, business and many others, that net immigration - immigration minus emigration - generates significant economic benefits for the existing UK population." As regards the contribution of migrants to the Exchequer, they concluded that "The overall fiscal impact of immigration is likely to be small, though this masks significant variations across different immigrant groups."

The scale of immigration
6. Under the Labour government, 5.2 million foreign immigrants arrived in the UK while 2 million left. Thus net foreign immigration was 3.2 million while about one million British citizens emigrated in that period. Despite the recession and the introduction of the “tough” new Points Based System, net foreign immigration has remained high and has in fact increased. International Passenger Survey figures for the year ending June 2010 show that net migration rose to 226,000 from 148,000 in the year to June 2009; much of this latest increase was due to a fall in British emigration. These current levels of immigration are far higher than at any time in our history. (Briefing Paper 6.1).

The impact of immigration

7. The major impact is on population. The independent Office for National Statistics (ONS) projects that the population of the UK will reach 70 million in 2029 compared to 61.8 today. Nearly all of the increase will be in England. 68% will be due to immigration [2] (This is illustrated in the Power Point Presentation accessed from the Home Page.)

8. The latest government household projections show that immigration will account for 36% of all new households in the next 20 years.[3]

9. Meanwhile, there are more than 300 primary schools in which over 70% have English as a second language; this is nearly a half million children. In primary and secondary schools, nearly one million children have English as a second language. See Briefing Paper 2.7.

11. It is noteworthy that the House of Lords endorsed most of the arguments put forward by Migrationwatch (Briefing Paper 1.18 and Briefing Paper 1.20).
Briefing Paper 3.5). Coalition Policy

What should be done?

22 The broad objective should be to achieve "Balanced Migration" - that is to bring the level of immigration down towards the level of emigration. This is the objective of the Cross Party Group established in September 2008. A fuller account of their proposals can be found at www.balancedmigration.org.
.
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/

Rhoda Klapp

If you think the Cavanagh and Portes replies were good quality, you are only partially right. They were slanted, they were too long to comment on effectively. They were of course also disingenuous. But while we had Portes, why not ask him about Neather? Why not have him explain the last government's immigration policy? Why not ask him whether being a UK citizen in the UK is any advantage, or the reverse? No, we cannot ask him, he has gone. It was what they call a drive-by. No use at all. But then Nelson, Massie and Bright are no strangers to the drive-by, as Archibald's campaign has shown. This comment section needs to be a two-way street. If you write silly things you ought to be prepared to defend them. I do, and I am.

Publius

Still no posts getting through, I see. Useless.

Tom Pride

Fraser – you have got your inquiry and as predicted:

“Nick Clegg's riot inquiry panel is beyond a joke” - James Delingpole

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100102677/nick-cleggs-riot-inquiry-panel-is-beyond-a-joke/

Just adds to the sum of pointless statist spending.

Archibald

Rhoda - thanks. My computer doesn't seem to be working properly, as I have made several posts recently but none have made it to the wall.

Archibald

Fraser, as I attempted to post twice now, I think this is a good initiative. I think Simon Stephenson also makes and excellent point. One suggestion based on the comments you have had on the specific posts - in the interests of balance, it might also be interesting for you or one of the team to act as a mediator or summarizer in future debates, and thus have two 'camps' in direct opposition, rather than you be open to be accused of bias in favour of one argument.
Finally, I do hope you are not now simply refusing to publish my comments rather than have to put up with the pestering, that would be a very depressing development.

Mrs Nobody

Coffee House seems to have become an entirely male product of late.
Are there no decent female journalists who could or would agree to be employed on your fine blog?
Has the editor or some other person of power at your veritable organ 'gone off' women?

Publius

@Mrs Nobody

The quality of the analysis and opinions matters more than the sex of the writer, no?

Mrs Nobody who is nevertheless somebody.

@Publius

I agree, but as a Jane Austen reader, I also note that men and women are quite different
in their type of interests and in their thinking.
I believe in equality of opportunity and the possibility of equal intelligence and ability but not in the socialists kind of equality which is just sameness.
To be blunt Coffee House is now a bloke's political blog and it shows.

Edward McLaughlin

'is there anything you would like to here?'

The truth about the demographic timebomb that has been placed in our laps by our political elite, labelled 'multicultural diversity'.