You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I reckon Crosby has fundamentally misunderstood the way the public thinks in this country...the UK is much more sympathetic to 'underdogs' and likes someone who stands up to bullies
We're talking about the country whose longest-serving PMs in the last century are Thatcher and Blair, right? 😆
the whole campaign is sh*t with all parties simply fiddling around the edges,
Did you read the post above yours?
My wife said she was going to vote green, I told her fair enough but to read their policies. She's not voting green any more. Same with a squaddie mate, he didn't realise what the greens propose to do to the military! I do wonder if just liked the name......
These people are by no means stupid and deserve a vote as much as anyone else, they just react to whatever their chosen media outlet feed them as you say.
In the loveliest possible way, if your squaddie mate a) didn't know the Greens weren't big fans of military spending and b) expect a Green government with an absolute majority to unilaterally dissolve the military in its first term, that says more about your mate than the Greens...
Poor .... go away and have a little think...
Is that aimed at me or aimed at him 😉
Funny though
with a Labour government it would have been 50% larger, possibly more.
I though the Tories had achieved what :Labour said they would do- genuine Q that one.
The comments on our local Tory candidate's [Facebook] page show that [buying Facebook ads] isn't always effective; lots of negative comments.
[img] 
?oh=403a0a4010f900eb2a8d2c1cf4369a5c&oe=55A23D81&__gda__=1440911816_7c0c5ef6b2ebac0ece84cde7622dca57[/img]
He posted a pic of him with a fluffy puppy and the resulting thread almost made me feel sorry for him...almost:
We're talking about the country whose longest-serving PMs in the last century are Thatcher and Blair, right?
True but I do think there's a distaste for the negative campaigning employed so far by the tories. If you look at how they've changed their campaign since Fallon's backstabber hysterics they would seem to agree.
Reckon you could summarise it there - any party that thinks it a good tactic to bully voters by telling them opinions are 'wrong' is playing a high-risk PR strategy.dazh - Member
...I do think there's a distaste for the negative campaigning...
As far as the UK is concerned, it is not a marketing technique ever successfully played by commercial brands, primarily because you are effectively saying "if you even though about X or Y then you're an idiot".
Reckon you could summarise it there - any party that thinks it a good tactic to bully voters by telling them opinions are 'wrong' is playing a high-risk PR strategy.
I'm not so sure, people may say they don't like it but the research says it works.
What I want to know is.... has Junky hi-jacked THM account?
Have JY and THM ever been seen together in the same room ? Not unheard of for people to have multiple accounts ?
(from p49 of Green manifesto)
@mike, well you've shot yourself in the foot a bit there with your source 😉
We could spend more of our GDP on public goods if our taxes where higher like they are in the most of the countries you quoted, lets start with VAT of food like they have in Germany 8% or France 5.5%
I would say my one curiosity is the US which has very low taxes and generally hates public spending even the Democrats. Needs some more investigation but given the source is the Green's manifesto I think that's a waste of time.
I would say my one curiosity is the US which has very low taxes and generally hates public spending even the Democrats.
It's the classic rightwing trick of pretending they hate the state and state spending, whilst at the same time spending more than their opponents and running higher deficits. As has been pointed out in other threads, rightwing parties have a very poor track record of reducing spending and running surpluses, yet quite cleverly seem to be able to convince the people of the opposite.
Some commentary (originating from Jim Murphy) / analysis of the Tory manifesto which says English MPs will get to veto any vote on English taxes. Together with other sections on English Votes for English laws it seems clear they intend to introduce English Income Tax once the Scots have the same. So the tax free allowance will be set nationally accross the UK but the rates and bands will be determined locally. The Scots will have the freedom to introduce a 50p top rate for example but that can only be done in England if a majority of English MPs vote for it (or strictly speaking don't veto it)
Document below, page 69 and 72
[url] http://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/manifesto2015/ConservativeManifesto2015.pdf [/url]
I've not been paying attention today as I've actually had some work to do. I see someone in the form of the Libdems has finally mentioned education. Bit odd it's taken this long seeing as there's a bit of a crisis with teachers demoralised, a lack of places in primary schools, class sizes back above 30 etc. I'd have thought it would've been a much bigger issue but labour and the tories barely mentioned it.
""It's the classic rightwing trick of pretending they hate the state and state spending, whilst at the same time spending more than their opponents and running higher deficits. As has been pointed out in other threads, rightwing parties have a very poor track record of reducing spending and running surpluses, yet quite cleverly seem to be able to convince the people of the opposite. ""
owning and controlling most of the media is a big help in that objective......no awkward questions and plenty of negative bile on your opponents-helps keep the misnamed "debate" on their terms --suprising that despite all the odds stacked against them , opposition does get elected-usually because people are so fed up of the existing govt--seems the declinnig electorate and turnout favours the tories.....
The lib dems are *ed! As if we did't know already. After this......
[img] 
[/img]
They've clearly decided that under no circumstances will they commit to anything whatsoever. I can't remember which one of the muppets was on the Today programme this morning (they're a memorable bunch, aren't they?), but everything was preceded with
"we can't envisage a situation in which we'd...."
or
"obviously, we'd prefer to... "
and other such nonsense. They must think we've all just fallen out of a tree. Roughly translated, this means...
"we don't have a single, solitary policy we'd be prepared to commit too. This whole manifesto is a total sham, as everything..... and we do mean[i] absolutely everything[/i]... is up for negotiation, as long as the handful of us left get to keep our ministerial cars. We're grown to quite like them. And we don't really give a shit about anything else really. We have absolutely no principles whatsoever"
*s!!!!
as long as the handful of us left get to keep our ministerial cars. We're grown to quite like them. And we don't really give a shit about anything else really. We have absolutely no principles whatsoever
Don't think I've ever seen a minor party openly admitting that there's no point in having any proper policies as they've little chance of ever implementing them, so instead they'll just whore themselves out to whoever needs them and try to do some frilling round the edges. It's mind-blowingly cynical whilst at the same time brutally honest.
Dazh - and amazing how many fall for it, Look at all the headlines about austerity, cuts, privatisation etc when as you say they are all largely a mirage. The SNP owes it's status to fighting policies that haven't even been implemented - although given that their grasp of even the basics is so weak we can excuse them.
So who are the stupid ones?
Likely result at the moment is two parties who continue to be at loggerheads with each other. Balls U turn on the SNP might make Cleggs tuition fee hiccup look minor!!!
Second leaflet though the door today. Things must be hotting up!
Second leaflet though the door today. Things must be hotting up
And our [url= http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/local/darlington/12891171.UKIP_candidate_offers_to_organise_gay_pride_march_in_Darlington_after_being_accused_of_swerving_hustings_on_environmental_and_LGBT_issues/ ]ukip candidate has offered to organise a Gay Pride parade[/url].
Nothing to add to the thread other than I've finally worked out what it is about THM that winds me up so much. It's not the total one eye'd ness when it comes to attacking the SNP but pretty much no body else, or even the often patronizing tone, it's the excessive use of exclamation marks!
!!
See last 24 hours comments on Tories and Labour to falsify the cyclops ideas. True Cleggy has got off lightly recently probably because they have kept the mad old one under wraps. But the SNP are in the Champions league of political BS and hypocrisy, so they always deserve special attention. Fiscal responsibility anyone?!?! 😉
Sorry, should be Fiscal responsibility anyone?
Balls U turn on the SNP might make Cleggs tuition fee hiccup look minor!!!
Given Balls is probably the most tribal, it's going to be interesting seeing him swallow a bit of compromise with either the SNP or the Libdems. He has a talent for ignoring his beliefs when it appears to suit him though so I suspect he'll do it with some aplomb.
Not had any leaflets here yet. I'm at the top of a hill though so they probably can't be arsed. Dissapointing as I quite like testing out the canvassers, and I've never lived in a place where the tories bother until now.
I want my MP to come round to discus the email I sent here about voting against military intervention in Syria. She is best placed on local issues but voted very badly on this issue. Hard to decide...
I'm convinced that Ed Balls is like a goldfish, and doesn't remember anything he's done previously. Even if it happened only 5 seconds before.
And if he can't remember it, then he can't be held accountable for it, can he?
Anyone else noticed how any real future contenders for the leadership of either of the main parties have become invisible. Anyone seen Andy Burnham or Boris recently?
Anyone else noticed how any real future contenders for the leadership of either of the main parties have become invisible. Anyone seen Andy Burnham or Boris recently?
Didn't Boris pop his head above the parapet and call Blair an 'epic tosser'? Funny cos despite my comments on negative campaigning I found that quite amusing. I think Burnham's probably been gagged, but I'm puzzled at Cooper's anonymity considering that the alternative female figureheads on the labour side. Theresa May is no doubt already sitting in a room full of phones waiting for Cameron to resign.
Yes the silent cooper is odd?
Was in Marlow today and drove past May posters. Still staggering that someone with such a poor record of policy execution could be a future leader. Wasn't the Prescott experience enough?
Lib Dem leaflets aplenty in Eastleigh, probably 4 vs 1 each from Labour and Tories.
[url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/camerons-retro-thatcherism-to-include-golf-cabriolets-and-howard-jones-2015041697395 ]Dave has just announced some new policies[/url]
[quote=dazh said]
Didn't Boris pop his head above the parapet and call Blair an 'epic tosser'?
I missed that one 🙂
Did anyone hear the UKIP whatever she was on Today, er, yesterday. Dropped more clangers than the amputee campanology ensemble doing 'Enter Sandman'. £30bn for four trident subs apparently. Bargain.
I'd forgotten it was the non-debate tonight. Really not sure if it'll play well for Miliband. He'll either look like a towering statesman alongside Farage et al or will be brought down to their level. Difficult to say really. Cameron's taking a huge risk though IMO, if it goes well for Miliband he'll get a huge amount of free exposure and Cameron will have no way to respond.
Help please - am feeling that I need to know more on most party's policies but don't have the endurance needed for reading multiple manifestos.
Where can I find more detail as opposed to the headlines that have been reported?
Thanks. 🙂
Anyone watch this? Would you vote for Leanne Wood, if you could? Didn't particularly like her performance, but it's not a bad protest vote maybe.
Crikey ... we are doomed (after watching the BBC election debate).
It looks like SNP is going to get Scotland out of UK from within the "coalition with Labour". Well done SNP.
If they are in coalition then Labour will not be able to do anything to prevent the breakup and will consigned Labour to history as the weakest link in UK breakup.
😆 Let's see if some one is going to break their promises ...
Oh ya ... on the side note ... if the Italian keeps getting the boat people from North Africa and Middle East at the rate of 10,000 within a short period of time (several weeks). How many houses do they have to build to accommodate all of them say if the boat people keep arriving?
Say if UK accept those boat people how many houses do we need to build?
Yes I did molgrips and surprised that there wasn't a thread on it.
Anyone know why Clegg wasn't there?
Would you vote for Leanne Wood, if you could?
Based purely on tonight's performance I would without any shadow of a doubt vote for Leanne Wood if I could.
She repeatedly hit the nail on the head, more so than anyone else, imo.
.
BTW I reckon that Ed Miliband was very lucky to have Nigel Farage there. Farage made him look very slightly less right-wing.
I also learnt tonight just how daft Farage can be, wtf made him think it was a good idea to attack the audience?
Only watched the first little bit, then dinner with the outlaws. But loved the bit when Farrage said that there were two people missing and everyone here said, "who is the other one?".
Extraordinary ability to talk complete nonsense and to deliberately mislead. It is funny to think that Ed is likely to take the path to ST power that will condemn labour to opposition for many years. Did he not watch what happened to the Lib Dems?
Good article in FT today about why are politicians not held liable for telling porkies. The people who are meant to serve us a re protected from telling the truth. Extraordinary!
molgrips - MemberAnyone watch this? [b]Would you vote for Leanne Wood, if you could?[/b] Didn't particularly like her performance, but it's not a bad protest vote maybe.
No. She is totally unrealistic.
She really struggled with one of the question which I even felt embarrassed for her.
She can be the voice for the Welsh but not beyond as she Cannot handle anything beyond her current position. She is not strong enough.
How does the BBC allow someone to pose the question about immigration and pressure on public services? Complete xenophobic nonsense.
Good for bennet for rejecting it from the outset, even though she quickly moved into rubbish soon afterwards. Even Ed tried to play the migrants pushing wages down BS despite stats easily showing that this is rubbish. Immigration has not lead to a decline in wages - the main losers have been previous immigrants no one else. Xenophobic gobbledegook.
Missed it. Was down the pub instead which was undoubtedly more productive. Newsnight is on now with Jeremy *unt, why is he even allowed to comment considering the tories boycotted it?
Is it worth watching on iPlayer?
the main losers have been previous immigrants no one else
Well as long as it only effects previous immigrants, eh? They probably deserve it 🙄
QT now - the lovely piers Morgan to stir it up!!!
Finally get to see Yvette Cooper.
How many stats with Shapps try to use in each sentence???
teamhurtmore - Member
How does the BBC allow someone to pose the question about immigration and pressure on public services? Complete xenophobic nonsense.
Do you think your moral is higher then the person who asked the question?
You sound very elitist ... 😯
Pretty stupid interpretation there. The obvious point is that the idea that immigrants force down low paid wages is BS. Clearly falsifiable. But the closet Xenophobes love such ideas.
Because it allows this nonsense to become part of the narrative. It should be quashed at source. Why allow one of a few questions be based on xenophobic nonsense?
Immigration has a positive impact on the economy.
Pretty stupid comment this : [i]" Immigration has not lead to a decline in wages - the main losers have been previous immigrants no one else. Xenophobic gobbledegook."[/i]
teamhurtmore - MemberPretty stupid interpretation there. The obvious point is that the idea that immigrants force down low paid wages is BS. Clearly falsifiable. But the closet Xenophobes love such ideas.
Perhaps not for you in your profession but how the hell do you know others are not affected? Oh ya ... the statisticians say so ... 🙄
teamhurtmore - Member
Immigration has a positive impact on the economy.
Tell that to the Italians ... 🙄
You simply have to look at the evidence. It's very clear unless you are a xenophobe.
The available research further shows that any adverse wage effects of immigration are likely to be greatest for resident workers who are themselves migrants. This is because the skills of new migrants are likely to be closer substitutes for the skills of migrants already employed in the UK than for those of UK-born workers. Manacorda, Manning and Wadsworth (2012) analyse data from 1975-2005 and conclude that the main impact of increased immigration is on the wages of migrants already in the UK.
Didn't realise QT was on tonight as well. Is it an unofficial David Dimbleby night?
Because it allows this nonsense to become part of the narrative. It should be quashed at source. Why allow one of a few questions be based on xenophobic nonsense?
Can't believe I actually agree with you on something. I said my night in pub was more productive, but most of it was spent arguing with an idiot work colleague who thinks voting for UKIP will force the labour party to move to the left.
And is it just me or does Grant Shapps/MIchael Green look like one of the lizards out of 'V'?
teamhurtmore - MemberYou simply have to look at the evidence. It's very clear unless you are a xenophobe.
How much is the property price in the UK I hear?
How many immigrants can afford the property price in the UK?
What I hear you say? You only allowed the rich immigrants because they are the ones that can afford the property price here?
Or do you mean all the immigrants should squeeze into one small house because they simply cannot afford to buy houses here. What I hear you say again?
🙄
Sorry, don't understand a word of that,
Good for Angus Robertson - a non shouty SNP MP and has really got under coopers skin!!!!
Seems I'm not the only one who's been drinking 🙂
teamhurtmore - MemberSorry, don't understand a word of that,
Not all immigrants are rich.
If they are Not rich how can they afford the house or property price in the UK?
Or do you only let rich immigrants in?
If you let in the low-skilled immigrants where are you going to house them?
dazh - Member
Seems I'm not the only one who's been drinking
I was about to post the same thing. Bubbly and fleurie, no wonder I can't understand chewkh and his tangetial points!! Dazh, we are in tune again! 😉
teamhurtmore - Member
dazh - Member
Seems I'm not the only one who's been drinkingI was about to post the same thing. Bubbly and fleurie, no wonder I can't understand chewkh and his tangetial points!! Dazh, we are in tune again!
Of course you are in tune of course you are. 😆
Anyone know why Clegg wasn't there?
After last months debate arrangement squabbles, it was decided that as a result of Cameron's refusal to do this one it would be run as a 'party leaders who are not in government debate'.
I'm not quite sure why that excludes Clegg, but apparently on some technical point it does.
Poor wee Ed.
[img] 
[/img]
The best bit was when Millibland landed the sturgeon hook, line and sinker.
He lay in wait until she said she wanted a coalition with labour and he point blank refused! The look on his face was priceless he couldn't believe his luck! Poor wee Jimmy Krankie got the right hump!
Another clanger from sturgeon was when she slated Farage over his immigration/housing comments then went on to say five minutes later that because of all the eastern Europeans that have moved into Glasgow there isn't enough housing!
I was actually quite impressed with her passion until those points.
The Plaid and Green leaders are just chancers 'having a go' in my opinion, they would be completely oout of their depth in any government situation, I wouldn't trust them to run a 100 metres!
You are obviously unaware that Miliband ruled out a coalition with the SNP a month ago :
[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/ed-miliband-rules-out-a-coalition-with-the-snp-10111058.html ]Ed Miliband rules out coalition with the SNP [/url]
I can assure you that Nicola Sturgeon is better informed than you appear to be.
The best bit was when Millibland landed the sturgeon hook, line and sinker.
He lay in wait until she said she wanted a coalition with labour and he point blank refused!
Aye, that was really clever, ruling out working with the SNP. The one wee flaw is that means letting the Tories back in but hey, at least he stuck to his principles eh?
Back in the real world, no-one was talking about a Lab/SNP coalition anyway, the proposal is a Labour minority government with SNP supporting it on the Budget and confidence motions. And no-one, not even Ed Miliband, has ruled that out. Because he can't.
Back in the real world, no-one was talking about a Lab/SNP coalition anyway,
No, really!
The innocence of that interpretation warms the heart. Not too many historians about to ask, "why, where, when etc...."
the proposal is a Labour minority government with SNP supporting it on the Budget and confidence motions.
It's all sounds so simple.
And no-one, not even Ed Miliband, has ruled that out. Because he can't.
The pull of power trumps everything as Cleggy discovered.
Now if the dangerous ones put Angus Robertson out a bit more, the whole thing could become marginally tolerable. Obvious BS aside at least he avoids the head bobbing and shaking and staged vitriol etc.
The Plaid and Green leaders are just chancers 'having a go' in my opinion, they would be completely oout of their depth in any government situation, I wouldn't trust them to run a 100 metres!
Could you explain what you mean here I dont get it.
cinnamon_girl - Member
Anyone know why Clegg wasn't there?
sucking off cameron ?.......
bencooper - Member
He lay in wait until she said she wanted a coalition with labour and he point blank refused!
Aye, that was really clever, ruling out working with the SNP. The one wee flaw is that means letting the Tories back in but hey, at least he stuck to his principles eh?
There's a difference between a coalition and working with the SNP on a vote by vote basis - the latter will happen if Labour get enough seats to be a minority govt or a small majority.
Which was the point I made in my second paragraph 😉
teamhurtmore - Member
You simply have to look at the evidence. It's very clear unless you are a xenophobe.The available research further shows that any adverse wage effects of immigration are likely to be greatest for resident workers who are themselves migrants. This is because the skills of new migrants are likely to be closer substitutes for the skills of migrants already employed in the UK than for those of UK-born workers. Manacorda, Manning and Wadsworth (2012) analyse data from 1975-2005 and conclude that the main impact of increased immigration is on the wages of migrants already in the UK.
Firstly your evidence says 'likely to be greatest' and 'main impact' which is hardly definitive.
Secondly and my main problem with it is that it is NOT OK that immigration keeps the wages low of migrants already here! Only a xenophobe would think it is OK.
The funniest thing from the Debate was Ed saying "Debate me, debate me David, just me and you"
The little ray of sunshine that is IDS has just ruled out not just a Tory coalition with any other parties, but also any ad hoc, vote by vote arrangements.
This whole election campaign is now an utter farce. They're all manoeuvring for the inevitable hung parliament, while Implausibly claiming theyre not. And the manifestos aren't manifestos at all. They're just a starting point for negotiations.
Alex Salmond, where is he ? The SNP aren't daft they know how poisonous he is to voters outside Scotland so he's being kept away from the national coverage only to be rolled out as leader of the SNP at Westminster.
@binners, I think the Tories will look at another LibDem coalition or will try and govern with a minority government counting that some LibDems/DUP/UKIP etc will vote with them on certain issues but without a formal coalition. I am also firmly of the view that these opinion pools are largely worthless, they are so easily manipulated. A surprise majority is not out of the question.
CTK - feel free to go an read the research. What you will find is that immigration actually has very little impact on wages at all (unless you are a xenophobe) and if anything it increases them - a little thing called supply and demand for labour. Its juts that this doesn't suit the blame the immigrant narrative that UKIP and others depend on. But it is not clear cut and there are losers - including previous immigrants. Whether that is right or wrong is a different debate altogether...
The available research further shows that any adverse wage effects of immigration are likely to be greatest for resident workers who are themselves migrants. This is because the skills of new migrants are likely to be closer substitutes for the skills of migrants already employed in the UK than for those of UK-born workers. Manacorda, Manning and Wadsworth (2012) analyse data from 1975-2005 and conclude that the main impact of increased immigration is on the wages of migrants already in the UK.
Quote from TMH and my view exactly. Those at greatest risk from immigrant labour are the prior generation of immigrants as its their jobs which are undercut. This is well understood.
Alex Salmond, where is he ? The SNP aren't daft they know how poisonous he is to voters outside Scotland so he's being kept away from the national coverage only to be rolled out as leader of the SNP at Westminster.
Well at the moment he isn't anything other than a MP candidate, he's not leader of anything. Though, if he does get elected and heads to Westminster with dozens of other SNP MPs, it'll be very entertaining to watch.
I think if Alex Wanders in to Westminster as kingmaker in a coalition, then a massively dangerous critical mass of self-regarding, preening smugness will be reached, that could endanger the future of humanity itself!
I'm sick to death of hearing about this bloody election - especially as I can't influence the results in any way and yet the outcome is bound to have some (probably negative) effect on me.
Alex Salmond has already said that Angus Robertson will remain the SNP leader in Westminster.
But it is not clear cut and there are losers - including previous immigrants. Whether that is right or wrong is a different debate altogether...
There is no debate about this point- it is wrong- only a xenophobe would think otherwise 😀
So basically the rich get richer and the poor get poorer on the back of migrant labour.
I think the Tories will look at another LibDem coalition or will try and govern with a minority government counting that some LibDems/DUP/UKIP etc
No doubt they will but it'll be pointless if the numbers don't add up. [url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/16/in-the-election-numbers-game-the-odds-are-stacked-against-cameron ]Interesting, if bleedingly obvious analysis[/url] in grauniad this morning. Basically the tories are screwed as the Libdems look like losing so many seats to labour and the SNP that the tories have no hope of taking back as many seats off labour to make up the shortfall. It'll be quite ironic if the tories selfish and narrowminded sidelining of their coalition partners results in their own demise.
CTK - again, go and read the research, it will help with the confusion. But little clue, the evidence is that immigration has very little impact on wages - its a convenient red herring. You can interpret that as you see fit.
The Plaid and Green leaders are just chancers 'having a go' in my opinion, they would be completely oout of their depth in any government situation, I wouldn't trust them to run a 100 metres!
Could you explain what you mean here I dont get it.
They are a couple of 'have a go' politicians who have somehow found themselves leaders of their parties.
Neither of them have the talent not intelligence to be allowed anywhere near number 10.
(In my opinion for what it's worth).
Neither of them have the talent not intelligence to be allowed anywhere near number 10.
Talent and intelligence are irrelevant. It's not like there's an exam they have to take. Maybe there should be but that's a different debate. The only thing they need are votes. That's it I'm afraid.
Neither of them have the talent not intelligence to be allowed anywhere near number 10.
I think the leader of Plaid Cymru has the intelligence to work out that since her party doesn't stand candidates outside Wales she will never take up residence in Number 10.
I just got some election literature through from our local UKIP candidate. In the spirit of democracy I read it. It's fair to say that intelligence wasn't the first word that sprang to mind.
The general tone was the same as that I see from a group of old regulars in my local, who can often be overheard using phrases like 'it's them bloody ****'s'. He even looks like Al Murray in full pub landlord guise.
He's kindly supplied me with a poster I can put in my window, to proudly proclaim 'I'm backing UKIP'
Very thoughtful!
teamhurtmore - MemberCTK - again, go and read the research, it will help with the confusion.
I've read the research which you choose to quote from and it makes the point that immigration can result in making rich people richer and poor people poorer. Perhaps you should read it again to help with your "confusion"? There's a clue in "a little thing called supply and demand for labour".