The Sun should use language that reflects reality, not their readers' prejudices.
Foreigners now make up almost one in ten of all dole claimers, according to page 2 of today’s Sun.
The statistic is just the latest rejoinder in a row between the government and Brussels over the extent to which migrants are moving from country to country as ‘benefit tourists’ within the EU.
A total of 9.4 per cent of all Jobseekers Allowance claimants this year – 142,300 – were ‘not British born’, according to the Sun. This compares with the 3 per cent figure cited by the EU – prompting the Sun to boast that the “statistics used by the controversial [EU] report are almost two years out of date”.
The Sun’s story, however, is quite misleading.
Firstly, why has the paper chosen to use the broad term ‘not British born’ in a piece about benefit tourists coming to the UK from other EU countries?
One in 10 job seekers allowance claimants are ‘not British born’, according to the Sun. This is not the same, however, as one in 10 jobseekers allowance claimants being ‘benefit tourists’ from other parts of the European Union – as should have been obvious to the journalist writing the piece.
According to the 2011 census, one in eight – 13 per cent – of UK residents was born overseas. To give an example of just how fatuous the term ‘not British born‘ is, here are a few British national treasures who would fall under the paper’s definition of ‘benefit tourists’ should they ever sign on for jobseekers allowance (unlikely, I know):
Tory MP Daniel Hannan – born in Lima, Peru
Joanna Lumley – born in India
Eddie Izzard – born in Aden, Yemen
Richard E. Grant – born in Swaziland
Boris Johnson – born in New York, USA
Bradley Wiggins – born in Ghent, Belgium
John Barnes – born in Kingston, Jamaica
None of these celebrities were British born. According to the Sun, they are therefore ‘foreigners’ and potential ‘benefit tourists’.
As to the wider row about migrants coming from places like Poland and Hungary to claim benefits and ‘steal our jobs’ (you’ve probably noticed a contradiction there that some of our political commentators are seemingly oblivious to), there is, as it happens, no precedent to support such claims.
Research published by the government last year found that almost 17 per cent of all British nationals were receiving working-age benefits compared to under 7 per cent of all those classed as non-UK nationals when they first arrived in the UK.
As of February 2011, those who were foreign nationals when they first came to the UK represented 6.4 per cent of claimants – despite making up 13 per cent of the population.
Working-age benefits are defined as income support, job seeker’s allowance, carer’s allowance and disability living allowance.
This is a long-term trend. In 2008-09, at the height of Labour’s policy of so-called ‘uncontrolled immigration’, A8 immigrants paid 37 per cent more in direct or indirect taxes than they received in public goods and services.
A8 immigrants also contributed 0.96 per cent of total tax receipts and accounted for only 0.6 per cent of total expenditures (see table; click to zoom).
The Sun may not have wished their terminology to have been interpreted in this way. They may also have been attempting to whip up hostility to migrants using phrases like ‘not British born’. Either way, they should use language that reflects reality, not their readers’ prejudices.
47 Responses to “Are 1 in 10 on the dole really immigrants?”
OldLb
So if they aren’t getting pensions then look at what that means.
About 2 trillion owed (present value) to civil servants. If most don’t get pensions what does it mean about the pensions of those that do.
They are raking it in. There are some unbelievable fat cats in the PS.
Or you’re argument about pensions is wrong.
Which is it?
Why should PS be any different from the rest of us? Why should we slave until we drop just because the fat cats want their 2 trillion, rising with inflation. All Bernie Maddoffed off the books.
Alison Piearcey
That’s my point – PSW shouldn’t get a worse deal than private sector workers. That private workers should get some kind of retirement too. Maybe we could all pay a bit of our current wages – those that have them. We could call it ‘pension contributions’ and many of us have been paying them for years.
And as for raking it in – Brown spent a whole lot of the pension funds, so not as much as you make out.
Judge all of by a few fat cats? Can I just say ‘bankers’ and then we all accept that not everyone in any industry, sector, company or welfare provision gets the same amount? That the most are workers, not CEOs – in both sides of the increasingly artificial division between ‘public’ and ‘private’. How many public services are now in the hands of private companies.
So – neither. That’s what you get for setting up a false dichotomy. The reality is that a large number of public servants were promised a decent retirement, payed in for years, and now are getting close to retirement, find the money’s all gone. So that 2 trillion (I’m going to imagine that’s lifetime amounts, assuming everyone got maximum) isn’t there anymore – no-ones having it all, it isn’t there to be had.
Not to say some senoir civil servants haven’t done quite nicely – but if they paid in for 40 or 50 years, there ought to be something left so a lifetime of service isn’t rewarded with poverty. Whereever you worked.
OldLb
PSW shouldn’t get a worse deal than private sector workers.
=====
But they aren’t. A small number(you’ve said that most don’t get pensions) are owed 2 trillion rising with inflation
The money to pay that comes at the expense of the private sector workers. They get no pensions, so the public sector gets their gold plated pensions.
====
We could call it ‘pension contributions’ and many of us have been paying them for years.
====
Agreed. We’ve been paying. So they owe us a pension? Right? They owe in total 6,500 bn pounds.
So what have they done with the money. Lots of assets. All that investment Labour goes on about. Er, no. They’ve spent the lot. It’s all gone. There is no pot of gold.
Wake up. It’s a fraud.
========
(I’m going to imagine that’s lifetime amounts, assuming everyone got maximum)
=========
No, its just what’s owed. Didn’t you realise that the fat cats in the public sector excluded themselves from life time limits? That’s for the private sector not the PS fat cats. After all, if that limit didn’t exist, people would be contributing to their own pensions rather than the fat cat pensions in the PS.
==========
if they paid in for 40 or 50 years, there ought to be something left so a lifetime of service isn’t rewarded with poverty
==========
Exactly.
Except you don’t realise that its the majority who get the poverty, and the fat cats in the PS who are in clover. It’s come at the expense of those who aren’t in those jobs.
PS. This is just civil servants. Local government, teachers, NHS aren’t part of that state system. That debts on top. Those pension schemes are ‘fully funded schemes’. Note that this means they should be fully funded, not that they are. The LGA scheme only has assets to cover 50% of what they owe. Massive black hole.
Now think about the state pension. Lots of people involved there. How much are they owed? 30 million people, compared to the small number of civil servants? Just over double, for lots more people.
Now face up to the numbers.
Debt increasing at 850 bn a year.
Taxes 600 bn a year total.
Guess what’s going to happen.
Alec
Just how thick are you? I am in disagreement with the way the op-ed is presented… I made the exact same point which you think is the “real question” everyone is ignoring.
Honestly, can you not parse a simple sentence; or are your basic bad manners so ingrained that you don’t bother with actually reading the AtL piece or BtL comments but start blathering from the word go?
~alec
OldLb
A8 immigrants paid 37 per cent more in direct or indirect taxes than they received in public goods and services.
============
This is completely wrong.
We know what the cost of public goods and services are. It’s 11.5K a person a year.
Migrants on average do not pay 11.5K a year per person in tax. That would mean the average pay of a migrant is over 40K assuming they have no children or dependants. Add on 40K for each dependant.
That’s the generalisation.
For the specific, there are lots of migrants who don’t come close to paying 11.5K a year in tax. So the argument presented is false.
Similarly the 11.5K a year ignores the pension debts to the migrants that are accruing. Unless you think that we should say no migrant gets a pension from the UK government?
How about Alec, that you address the points I’ve made, rather than your usual debating tactic so beloved of the left. Attack the messenger.