Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Local By-Election Results with news of a Lib Dem gain from

2»

Comments

  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    edited July 2014
    HYUFD said:

    Richard Navabi If Baroness Ashton can survive Brussels I am sure Archie Norman can, you don't get to be CEO of one of the UK's largest supermarkets by being a soft touch. He seems far more qualified than most of the EUocracy

    Baroness Ashton hasn't exactly shaken things up, has she? She's a bureaucrat, fits in perfectly, achieves nothing.

    Archie Norman is certainly not a soft touch, and of course he's perfectly qualified, but that isn't the point. It's just a completely different set of skills. You need a Peter Mandelson, not an Archie Norman.

  • ToryJimToryJim Posts: 4,189
    Evening all. Well I had an intriguing day. Went for a job interview which finished at 16:50, by 17:05 I was being called back for a second interview. I think that has to be some sort of record. Anything interesting happen today that I might not know? Anyway like I'm sure like Mr Eagles I shall be out most of tomorrow to celebrate the 2114th birthday of Gaius Iulius Caesar.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    edited July 2014
    HYUFD said:

    Socrates/Flightpath Maybe, but the minimum skills limit needs to be set at some level and allow companies to hire to fill shortages

    If there's a genuine skill shortage, then prices will rise significantly above the average graduate starting salary. That's currently £29k:

    http://www.highfliers.co.uk/download/GMReport12.pdf

    If you're not willing to pay what an average graduate will earn in her first year, then it's not much of a shortage.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,875
    RN Portillo would probably be my top choice, he is Machiavellian enough to match Mandy
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,030
    New thread!
  • BobaFettBobaFett Posts: 2,789
    Socrates said:

    Oh, and my "cynicism" is also validated by the fact that senior Labourites, in a display of Bond villain style openness, admitted to what they were doing:

    But the earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.

    I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended - even if this wasn't its main purpose - to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.


    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/dont-listen-to-the-whingers--london-needs-immigrants-6786170.html

    How do you make the right's arguments out of date except by changing society so much that conservative views are no longer politically tenable?

    Given that your posts on here suggest you favour almost zero immigration, I often wonder if you have the inconvenience of having to hire people. I want the best person for the job. I don't care where that person comes from. I have hired Brits and I have hired immigrants. But I would prefer it of the likes of yourself and Nige Farage never got the reins of power so I would be prevented from getting the best pool of talent.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    HYUFD said:

    RN Portillo would probably be my top choice, he is Machiavellian enough to match Mandy

    Yes, although I think Mandelson was quite exceptionally good for the role - that combination of silky intrigue and sharp decision-making meant he could handle both the politics of his colleagues and the management of the permanent staff.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,608
    @Socrates,

    re Banglashis vs Poles, I put my point badly, let me rephrase it.

    If immigration was designed to create Labour voters by importing grateful Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, then why have Polish people coming into the country?

    These are people who are not coming here - by and large - to gain citizenship, and so you wouldn't want to bother getting them here for that reason. In fact, the existence of said Poles and Romanians - who gain no economic or otherwise advantage from becoming British - depresses the earning power of the so-called Labour clients core votes.

    This EU immigration outnumbers Bangladeshi/Pakistani immigration by an order of magnitude. (If I read the statistics right, 69,000 people came to the UK from India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka in 2012, barely more than came from the 'old commonwealth', and massively less than came from the EU. See: http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn06077.pdf)

    Also, you are so incredibly pessimistic about British culture and society, it genuinely scares me. I believe we are one of the finest - if not the finest - country in the world. I believe that most people who come here, the vast majority in fact, come here because they want to be part of Britain, and want to be part of what makes us great. Sure, there are nutjobs, for whom things didn't work out and who see Allah as the answer. But these people - even in the sink estates of East London - are surprisingly rare. Britain is so great, that the vast majority of people want to be just like you or me. They want their kids to go to university. They want their kids to succeed and have good jobs and wear suits, and have a mortgage and a car. Sure, they (increasingly unsuccessfully) want their kids to still observe Ramadan and not to go with their mates to the pub on a Friday night. But just with the assimilated Jews, it doesn't work in the long-term. Because British culture is awesome and seductive. The reason the Imman preaches violence and destruction is not because we're an easy target, but because he's losing his flock to Mammon and The Fox and Hounds and the Emirates.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    BobaFett said:

    Socrates said:

    Oh, and my "cynicism" is also validated by the fact that senior Labourites, in a display of Bond villain style openness, admitted to what they were doing:

    But the earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.

    I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended - even if this wasn't its main purpose - to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.


    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/dont-listen-to-the-whingers--london-needs-immigrants-6786170.html

    How do you make the right's arguments out of date except by changing society so much that conservative views are no longer politically tenable?

    Given that your posts on here suggest you favour almost zero immigration, I often wonder if you have the inconvenience of having to hire people. I want the best person for the job. I don't care where that person comes from. I have hired Brits and I have hired immigrants. But I would prefer it of the likes of yourself and Nige Farage never got the reins of power so I would be prevented from getting the best pool of talent.
    I do not favour zero immigration. I favour gross immigration at pre-1997 levels, which was about 250k a year, during a period of economic boom. I have also being involved in recruiting many people over the years, and have hired Brits and foreigners. Of course the employer wants to be able recruit whoever they want, but that is what is called a vested interest. A good policy maker balances that with the costs and benefits to the country overall.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,875
    Richard Navabi Agree Mandelson was effective, probably more so in the EU than the UK in the latter years of his career

    Socrates Not all the jobs will be graduate jobs
This discussion has been closed.