Cant get a job? Immigrants rule UK Jobs
Post Categories: DWP • Labour Market System • uk government
It has been revealed that in some areas of the UK, immigrants make up to almost 7 in 10 jobs. If you cannot secure a job, perhaps that is why!
| Place | Percentage (of jobs by immigrants) | Rough ratio |
| Newham (“London 2012″), London | 69.5 | 7 in 10 people |
| Brent, London | 57.7 | 3 in 5 people |
| Westminster, London | 57.4 | 3 in 5 people |
| Harrow, London | 55.3 | 1 in 2 people |
| Ealing, London | 51.3 | 1 in 2 people |
| Kensington, London | 50.9 | 1 in 2 people |
| Tower Hamlets, London | 47.5 | 1 in 2 people |
| Hounslow, London | 47.4 | 1 in 2 people |
| Haringey, London | 47.1 | 1 in 2 people |
| Camden, London | 44.6 | 2 in 5 people |
| Merton, London | 44.2 | 2 in 5 people |
| Hammersmith, London | 41.4 | 2 in 5 people |
| Hackney, London | 41.1 | 2 in 5 people |
| Redbridge, London | 40.9 | 2 in 5 people |
| Lambeth, London | 40 | 2 in 5 people |
| Waltham Forest, London | 38.6 | 2 in 5 people |
| Southwalk, London | 37.8 | 2 in 5 people |
| Barking, London | 37.4 | 2 in 5 people |
| Enfield, London | 37.1 | 2 in 5 people |
| Slough | 37 | 2 in 5 people |
| Leicester | 36.3 | 2 in 5 people |
| Luton | 36.3 | 2 in 5 people |
| Wandsworth, London | 35.7 | 1 in 3 people |
| Barnet, London | 34 | 1 in 3 people |
| Hillingdon, London | 32.9 | 1 in 3 people |
| Lewisham, London | 32 | 1 in 3 people |
| Croydon, London | 31.9 | 3 in 10 people |
| Greenwich, London | 30.7 | 3 in 10 people |
| Islington, London | 29.9 | 3 in 10 people |
| Richmond (upon Thames), London | 29.7 | 3 in 10 people |
| Reading | 29.4 | 3 in 10 people |
| Cambridge | 28.5 | 3 in 10 people |
| Kingston (upon Thames), London | 28 | 3 in 10 people |
| Crawley | 26.9 | 1 in 4 people |
| Elmbridge | 26 | 1 in 4 people |
| Manchester | 24.7 | 1 in 4 people |
- 351 Jobcentre Plus advertised jobs were in the Adult Entertainment Industry
- New Labour POLICY requirements: Are they bullshit or not?
- Welfare Reform: Jobcentre Plus needs to scrap its £40m per year Labour Market System
- Direct.gov.uk: why the new job search website needs to be replaced
- Jobcentre Plus: Nude Webcam Performers
- Flexible New Deal | New Deal Scandal Review
9 Responses to “Cant get a job? Immigrants rule UK Jobs”
Trackbacks:
Leave a Reply
Please Note: We are an independent website NOT an official Government website or a business or affiliate operating on behalf of. Please consider this before posting any personal information or if for whatever reason thinking this is connected to Jobcentre Plus. (Always look for .gov.uk at the end of the URL which specifys a Government website)
Please Note: This post is over a month old. You may want to check future posts in this blog to see if there is new information relevant to your comment.
By submitting a comment here you grant this site a perpetual license to reproduce your comment(s) and name/web site in attribution. Only comment if you agree with the below rules.
(1) All comments on Flexible New Deal Scandal are moderated for purposes of filtering out SPAMThank you for your attribution to Flexible New Deal Scandal!
(2) I reserve the right not to publish any comment for any reason such as being racist or offensive
(3) I aim to accept comments within 3 hours (but could be up to 24 hours)
(4) I will post any comments not in favour of any article for balance of discussion
(5) I do not edit comments so if the comment is partially offensive it is unlikely to be approved at all
(6) I reserve the right to append line breaks to comments so they are easier to read or remove any link
This makes interesting but slightly unsettling reading. The isssue at hand here is not the number of migrants. It is the slap dash way the welfare system is going. Though it is worth considering if immigration was reined in and people who are not meant to be here are sent back. And we also need to develop a backbone and stick up to the eu or leave it.
In my opinion your time would of been better spent writing about the graduates that are either unemployed or in low skilled jobs. The justification that the government used to introduce tuition fees is a moot point also. the government stated amongst other things in the liarfesto that graduates can expect to earn more. RUBBISH I SAY RUBBISH
Surely the question is why don’t employers favour local people over immigrants. What about immigrants coming from other parts of the country, nevermind the EU? NO one would object to that, but it’s the same problem. Especially in a time of few jobs. It’s also what IDS has mooted.
I don’t believe that employers choose johnny foreigner because the brits are all lazy good for nothings. People are people.
What’s all this racist shit here for? I thought this was a site about how shit the DWP were, not a recruitment agency for wankers like the BNP.
Given that the above post is completely irrelevant to the purpose of the site, perhaps it ought to be pulled? The the OP can go and post this shit on far right websites where he and other similar tossers can talk bullshit to each other.
This was the first article I saw when I came here and it gave me entirely the wrong opinion about what sort of site this was – the BNP aren’t averse to pretending to be other people (they lack the balls to be honest about themselves) and I did think this site might be such a BNP front. I’m satisfied that it’s not (after reading a lot of the other articles), but how many people saw it and turned away?
Racist? Many London boroughs have a high population of Black, Asian and other European races. You are mistaken if you think the demographic of this site is solely white English people. This website isn’t a site regarding solely the DWP and its scheme providers but also the struggles of unemployment which the site users might find useful. If they or you dont find them useful you are free to leave – we aren’t holding a gun to your head – although we appreciate your input and you are welcome to stay.
I might not be the most logical person, let me explain: Flexible New Deal and New Deal are “employment schemes” what unemployed people go on. A big part of these schemes is about finding a job. Immigration will remain a big controversial element with us. We strongly do NOT support the BNP. We are not trying to safeguard jobs for “white English people”. We are hoping people to secure a job, get off welfare benefits and get out of poverty. If migrants are allowed to come in (terminology isn’t as in “illegal immigrants” but persons from EU and RoW (which could be dependent on our labour market) come here to work) while there isn’t enough jobs going for unemployed people – its completely relevant as this knock on effect brings more people on to these employment schemes.
This likely affects its delivery. I dont think its more of the point that nationals (doesn’t imply race or ethnicity) should be guaranteed a job first before others; but it raises question as to why employers are picking immigrants over residents. It could be skill base etc. however two major debates were over staffing for Nuclear power stations coming from Italy – which could be argued that locals should have been sought first or a mixture (lets not mention the fire at the closest nuclear power plant to me) and the ratio of immigrants to nationals who secured the 2012 work.
What most people were upset about was… it wasnt advertised – it wasnt because the successful candidate(s) were an immigrant(s) but the work was all contracted in bulk and people didn’t get a look in.
Steve, I don’t know flexible all that well but he does seem fair minded and like me i condemn/loathe the BNP. You also forget the point of this site. A place for debate and discussion, on reflection my reply to the original posting was a tad OTT, But as individuals we have a right to expression and our own opinions.
I tried to respond to flexibles posting in a manner that meant more to me. I was referring more so to the graduates and the fact that tony bliar ad his co-horts justification for tuition fees was the fact that a third are unemployed, or doing shelf stacking. Nothing wrong with shelf stacking but if you trained long and hard for your qualifications for a career. It really pisses you off to think yo have poured money down the drain for no real outcome.
The thicko government with it’s infinite wisdom are going to make these graduates do community punishment/forced labour, or send them blindly into any job on offer without thinkign of the future ramifications. No JOBS, NO JOBS for graduates whats the point in university other than to get more young people into debt, and ultimately more unemployed nobody going to university
Yeah my post aren’t always great however I would hate for everyone to just agree with me lol
Its good for people to agree, and those to agree in part and explore their ideas etc. It is always good to hear the other side of the story.
(not directed at anyone; for everyone to read)
Some key points:-
* Data from a newspaper (I didn’t research them)
* “Immigrants rule UK Jobs” title may offend people – but a more specific title such as “Immigrants dominate up to almost 70% of the labour markets in certain areas in London and around England ” not only sound crap but is really long. Newspapers might use headlines that are misleading. The purpose of the blog is to read the content of the article contained within and don’t judge by title.
* I personally think my additions to this data… “It has been revealed that in some areas of the UK, immigrants make up to almost 7 in 10 jobs. If you cannot secure a job, perhaps that is why!” is fair and not racist or offensive in anyway.
Expanded:
a) “It has been revealed [by some newspaper] that in some areas of the UK [as contained in the table], immigrants make up to almost 7 in 10 jobs [69.5% is almost 70% which is 7 in 10 people]“.
b) “If you cannot secure a job [in those areas], perhaps [or alternatively maybe you are not employable or cant apply for jobs properly etc.] that is why!” – A pool of unemployed residents exist everywhere… there is always more people than there is jobs (something we have been trying to highlight here on this site) so when a job comes up, all these people (or the majority anyway) who deem themselves qualified or good enough (a challenge maybe) will apply regardless of differences between candidates. (A point I am also making is these jobs were largely never advertised to nationals (thats is anyone of any race born here) so stood no chance of getting them – an unfair recruitment process.)
I hope this explains the circumstances more and drops any assumptions/allegations that I am affiliated to or support the BNP.
I admit I was too lazy to write in more detail, which if I had done, might not have had the same reaction.
Towards the right of the site in the sidebar you will see links with certain phrases and keywords in them. I do not select them – it is automatically selected. The link is the page arrived from the search engine, the link text is what they searched for (some are shortened though). The site only lists the most popular searches. Not everyone visits the site searching about New Deal or Flexible New Deal – many people find the site to general queries or what can seem unrelated questions – then they discover more about the site and therefore New Deal and Flexible New Deal.
I am changing direction (see The Future post) which involves discontinuing these sites and replacing them with sites about the new relevant schemes and general advice and guidance for jobseekers and the unemployed who dont claim.
Flexible:
Perhaps you should have? Especially as the stats are obviously incorrect.
People lie using stats a lot. I notice above that even the stats you gave had only on London borough at 70% and only 3 over 50%. So, the stats you use don’t reflect your title. But the stats are wrong anyway, What’s their definition of “immigrant”? How did they work out the percentage of jobs?
The Title is at least borderline racist and again not supported by the very stats you’re using, inaccurate though they are. To “rule” UK jobs, you’d figure over 50%. That was true in only 3 areas using your stats.
Your addition “It has been revealed that in some areas of the UK, immigrants make up almost 7 in 10 jobs. If you cannot secure a job, perhaps that is why!” is untrue and at least borderline racist. Even assuming your stats are accurate, you can only say “It has been revealed that in ONE area of the UK, immigrants make up almost 7 in 10 jobs.” (in fact, “ONE borough of London” would have been more accurate) There’s a difference between “some” and “one”. To then say (after such a distorted lead, and one that is based on inaccurate stats anyway ” If you cannot secure a job, perhaps that is why!” is racist. It openly blames unemployment on the immigrants.
I’m old enough to remember a programme called “Auf Wiedersehen, Pet” It dealt with a bunch of unemployed builders from the UK going to Germany to find work in the 80s. In short, the reverse of what the situation is today, where Poles come to the UK to find work. The option, of course, is still there – the EU works both ways. There’s nothing to stop people from this country going to France, Spain, Germany, any EU country, to find work. I wonder if those countries would treat us as shittily as we treat the Poles?
Why do employers give jobs to Poles instead of British? Probably because they’re cheap. What should we do about this? Moan about all the “bloody immigrants”? Or perhaps we should try to raise wages for jobs.
Hmm British Vs Poles. I had never mentioned the Polish and out of all the immigrants here, the Polish will be more of a minority than a majority. You are living off a stereotype that all immigrants are Polish and that they are cheap labour – which is indeed racist. All legal migrants (the type referred to here – dictionary definition) to my best knowledge have advantage of the National Minimum Wage thus aren’t cheaper than any nationals.
As for areas of the UK, there are hundreds of thousands, hardly going to be a list of every labour market in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. As I am only passing on some of the information from a newspaper (from Daily Star I think – not the Daily Mail before anyone jokes about that) I do not have more data than published and the list of places published were much greater than the list I did. I assume its a FoI data which there isn’t much point me spending a year or so trying to get the data already received to verify if its correct.
As for blaming unemployment on immigrants… thats not racist but a fact. Simply, if immigrants come in the country (this isn’t a debate for and against immigration – it can be proven that immigration over the last Century has been favourable and lets not forget about invasion back-in-the-day from Europe) – including many from the EU who have an automatic right – and take up jobs in our labour market, for each job taken its one job less for each national already living here. For example, if there were 100 jobs going in a town – 20 immigrants came along and got the job – thats 20 less jobs available. This is directly linked. Likewise, if there were say 100 jobs in a town, no immigrants applied, 900 candidates applied however there were 3000 unemployed people. There are 100 less jobs now for those remaining 2100 unemployed people – similar to the other example its the fault of those who choose not to apply and the blame cant lie with the successful candidates simply because they chose to stick in the effort of applying for the jobs. Its not a race issue many nationals born here are of non-white British ethnicity.
Its not the 7 in 10 figure which is the main concern anyway – anything above 30% is almost unsatisfactory. Sticking greater discrimination in the recruitment process isn’t necessary and isn’t the point I am trying to make. Immigration must be linked directly to the labour markets. If unemployment is high immigration should be reduced (thats reduced not prevented/stopped).
If the labour market is booming with millions of jobs created, immigration levels can be increased. The problem is the Government never done this which meant many jobs vacancies got replaced from outsiders – this is fair play to the migrants – however has left the taxpayer with a very large welfare bill – not just benefits but the associated employment schemes (i.e. New Deal and Flexible New Deal).
At the end of the day, its not about the migrants at all but the Government. Many people would contradict themselves. A free system for migration (people all say that when they have a secure job) Vs increased taxes to pay for a welfare state (because the knock-on effect is a right to Social Security for people who cant get a job). A balance is key, after all, even without any immigration there isn’t enough jobs to go round anyway so its far from a perfect solution to suggest a total ban on immigration or even a BNP policy of shipping out migrants.
If you had not to pay for the welfare state everyones taxation would be far lower: are you happy to pay high taxes for the belief of an open-immigration system while having to personally partially subsidise the effect it has on the rest of society? Afterall, over time nationals include descendants of migrants etc. so it isn’t an us vs them approach.
I do not expect you to understand economics etc. so I will try to explain the difference. For a Polish person (use an example you suggested) coming to the UK, can generate a lot of money to send back to Poland to family etc. For someone from the UK moving to Poland where cost of wages etc. is much less could be alright as the cost of living is cheaper, however, couldn’t benefit from temporary stays as the money will work out much lower. Only migration for us to Poland can be an advantage – if you worked in Poland for 5 years and saved up… moving back to UK… that money be spent very easily. If you come from Poland, worked in UK and saved for 5 years.. you can do more with that money back home.
The “immigrant taking jobs away” has always been an old excuse to cover up poor economic management.
In the first place the UK has much less immigrant for population than many other EU Countries, so the “problem” is generally less acute than people is given to believe.
Secondly lots of the jobs are highly exploitative and exist only because there are people desperate enough to take them and they are often immigrants and lastly lots of British go and work abroad so we should see this in the contest of a general workforce mobility, especially within the EU.
The immigrant cart has always been the favourite to explain unemployment. Yesterday the Jews today the “immigrants”. Always the stuff of “war amongst poor”…