Andrew Neil is claiming the UK's population has grown 5% since the beginning of the recession, but I see Max downthread says it is 3%.
Either way these are unsustainable figures. If we carry on like this the UK's population will hit 80 million people in 20-30 years. And then what. 90 million? 100 million?
Not likely but so what if it does?
That is a far better alternative than the nihilistic demographic doom facing nations like Italy where low birth rates and emigration mean a growing elderly population can't be properly supported by a declining working age population.
So we adopt a human Ponzi scheme?
Marvellous.
No we don't adopt it now, it was adopted 70 years ago when the twin concepts of pensions and health care neither paid for by savings was introduced. The system can not survive without a good ratio of working age to retired population.
Once life expectancies stop rising and once the baby boomers are retired the growth in population required can slow. But as long as we still face both of those then in order to avoid disaster we need growing populations. A growing population isn't needed to increase the working age population relative to overall as unsustainable ponzi scheme, it is needed just to keep a semblance of parity.
Ouch James Chapman (Mail) @jameschappers 6m @TimMontgomerie@rafaelbehr presenter on BBC Tees just said: 'You keep talking about the River Tyne, Prime Minister. It's not in our region'
But shadow chancellor, Ed Balls, said people were not feeling happier: "With GDP per head not set to recover for three more years and [with] most people still seeing their living standards squeezed this is no time for complacent claims that the economy is fixed."
Move those goalposts....I bet this becomes the BBC new meme and one of course they had no interest in pre 2010. I guess they have to find something to be negative about after their conspiracy theories about the whole type of jobs and too many entrepreneurs didn't come to much.
Welsh Athletics has confirmed 400m hurdler Rhys Williams has been provisionally suspended after being charged with an anti-doping violation
He needed doping to be that mediocre? Oh dear.
What's your PB over 400m hurdles? Or if that isnt your event what have you ever been European champion of?
Cutting. Very few athletes able to cut it at the top level bother with the Europeans. Rhys Williams was never competitive at a world level, but it now seems he used lottery funding and cheating to not make it. Well done him.
I would hate to have you on a jury if I was ever being tried!
"Ross Murdoch's win was magnificent. Quite some medal ceremony too."
Did you see the cute outfits some of those guys were wearing? Breathtaking....
I'm not overly taken by the miniature swimming attire of the gentlemen !!
Mrs JackW on the other hand is rooted to my 10inch .... black and white tv.
Oh no, Jack, I didn't mean those silly budgie-stranglers.
I was thinking of those dresses worn by the men carrying the medals. I simply have to have one.
I'm sure if you apply nicely to the games organiser they'll put you in contact with one of the men .... someone must want a feather boa sugar daddy - someone will "simply have to have one."
Including some estimates for this year it would take population growth from pre-crash levels to around 4.2%, the population grew by 400k last year, or 0.63%, for GDP per capita to catch up with pre-crisis levels it will take around two years from now.
That means it will have taken nine years after the start of the recession for people's personal wealth to catch up. And people wonder why the Tories are losing votes to UKIP given that over half of all population growth comes from net migration, mostly from within the EU.
It may be a simplistic (and wrong IMO) view to say that migration has made everyone poorer but to the uninitiated the evidence is pretty easy to point at, even if it is misreading the situation.
It is very simplistic and a basic understanding of economics shows it to be wrong. Are we supposed to pander to such ignorance?
Population is growing not just due to net migration, but due to longer life expectancies. As life expectancy continues to grow and the baby boomers retire and the population ages we face a stark conundrum:
Either we must have a growth in population to keep demographics sustainable and support a growing retired generation Or we keep the population the same and as more and more retire we face a demographic crisis of fewer and fewer of working age burdened to support them. Or we reverse longer life expectancies and see the elderly die early keeping population and demographics consistent.
I prefer option one. Growing population is a necessary good thing not a problem. It is a sign of good demographics and growing life expectancy.
Or we raise the pension age, and look to boost productivity.
It is already being raised but that is not a plausible solution unless you want to raise it far beyond what anyone has proposed. In 1945 life expectancy at birth was 68 with retirement at 65 meaning 3 years of expected retirement.
Life expectancy at birth now is over 90. So what do you propose retirement age should be? 87? 85?
UKIP would be a bit foolish to waste valuable resources trying to unseat Ed, though they'd be doing Labour a huge favour if they somehow managed it.
I agree that UKIP should not be trying primarily to unseat Ed. A decapitation strategy in and of itself would be a mistake. UKIP - as with all parties - should be aiming to win what it can, where it can.
However, it so happens that if - and it is a very big if - Peter Davies can be persuaded to stand for them, Doncaster North becomes very much a UKIP target. Put another way, he is an ideal fit for the seat and UKIP should have been trying to secure him for it irrespective of who the Labour candidate/MP is. That it happens to be the Labour leader and that he happens to be most definitely not a good fit for the seat just adds to the case but it isn't what makes it.
The fact is that UKIP are doing well in Doncaster even without the very significant boost that Davies would give their campaign: it's not just yesterday's result, it's the local and European elections from May. Add Davies and he would transform them in the seat from a serious option to genuine contenders.
In fact, the perception that UKIP was following a decapitation strategy would work against them: voters don't like being made to be the tools of some party's games. If the pieces do slot into place, they'd be best keeping the campaign resolutely local, if well-supported in funds and bodies.
It was only three months ago that @southamobserver was sarcastically suggesting ukip should try and win in Doncaster, suggesting they had no chance because of a lack of immigration there...
Another epic misread
If UKIP are targetting Doncaster surely the best seat to go for is Don Valley?
Doncaster North 2010 Lab share - 47.3% Doncaster Central 2010 Lab share - 39.7% Don Valley 2010 Lab share - 37.9%
UKIP are 16/1 to win Doncaster North with Ladbrokes
Shadsy, if you are offering 16/1 it ain't gonna happen!
I am however continually perplexed by the UKIP seats market on Betfair. You can lay None at about 7/4. Seems to me very likely that Farage will win wherever he stands, so that's a pretty safe safe bet.
It seems to me very likely that Farage will lose wherever he stands, as he has the last five times. He couldn't even beat Bercow after everyone else stood aside for him. Why would any other seat be any different? UKIP's best-ever individual result, in Eastleigh, was less than the lowest vote share that secured a seat in 2010.
There are a few obvious candidates who could win under scenario b). Personally I think both a) and b) will happen and UKIP will finish with about half a dozen seats, but I will be amazed if they do not win at least one, and have placed my bets accordingly.
Which half dozen do you reckon they'll win? Looking at 2010, their best result was 3rd and their best poll share was 6%, but they lost by 15,000 and 23,000 votes respectively. For the life of me I can't see which seats look like a good bet and any Farage stands in will, on previous form, see a mishandled campaign and a hardening of the anti-fruitcake vote.
My guess would be that Buckingham has poor demographics for UKIP - UKIP are also alot stronger now than they were then.
It's pretty pointless comparing UKIP's results from when they won 3%, to UKIP's prospects when they're on 13% or so. UKIP are in with a shout in 20 or so seats, which is not to say they'll win all, or most, of them.
Grimsby, Dudley North and South, Boston, Thanet North and South, Great Yarmouth, Thurrock, Folkestone & Hythe, Eastleigh, St. Austell, Plymouth Moor View, Castle Point, Sittingbourne & Sheppey, Bognor Regis, Portsmouth South, Huntingdon, Basildon, are all worth watching.
UKIP would be a bit foolish to waste valuable resources trying to unseat Ed, though they'd be doing Labour a huge favour if they somehow managed it.
I agree that UKIP should not be trying primarily to unseat Ed. A decapitation strategy in and of itself would be a mistake. UKIP - as with all parties - should be aiming to win what it can, where it can.
However, it so happens that if - and it is a very big if - Peter Davies can be persuaded to stand for them, Doncaster North becomes very much a UKIP target. Put another way, he is an ideal fit for the seat and UKIP should have been trying to secure him for it irrespective of who the Labour candidate/MP is. That it happens to be the Labour leader and that he happens to be most definitely not a good fit for the seat just adds to the case but it isn't what makes it.
The fact is that UKIP are doing well in Doncaster even without the very significant boost that Davies would give their campaign: it's not just yesterday's result, it's the local and European elections from May. Add Davies and he would transform them in the seat from a serious option to genuine contenders.
In fact, the perception that UKIP was following a decapitation strategy would work against them: voters don't like being made to be the tools of some party's games. If the pieces do slot into place, they'd be best keeping the campaign resolutely local, if well-supported in funds and bodies.
It was only three months ago that @southamobserver was sarcastically suggesting ukip should try and win in Doncaster, suggesting they had no chance because of a lack of immigration there...
Another epic misread
No, you are making that up I am afraid. What I actually said was that Doncaster was not a place in which there were a lot of immigrants so immigration could not explain UKIP's popularity there. I also said that I thought EdM would hold his seat and probably get over 50% of the vote.
Including some estimates for this year it would take population growth from pre-crash levels to around 4.2%, the population grew by 400k last year, or 0.63%, for GDP per capita to catch up with pre-crisis levels it will take around two years from now.
That means it will have taken nine years after the start of the recession for people's personal wealth to catch up. And people wonder why the Tories are losing votes to UKIP given that over half of all population growth comes from net migration, mostly from within the EU.
It may be a simplistic (and wrong IMO) view to say that migration has made everyone poorer but to the uninitiated the evidence is pretty easy to point at, even if it is misreading the situation.
It is very simplistic and a basic understanding of economics shows it to be wrong. Are we supposed to pander to such ignorance?
Population is growing not just due to net migration, but due to longer life expectancies. As life expectancy continues to grow and the baby boomers retire and the population ages we face a stark conundrum:
Either we must have a growth in population to keep demographics sustainable and support a growing retired generation Or we keep the population the same and as more and more retire we face a demographic crisis of fewer and fewer of working age burdened to support them. Or we reverse longer life expectancies and see the elderly die early keeping population and demographics consistent.
I prefer option one. Growing population is a necessary good thing not a problem. It is a sign of good demographics and growing life expectancy.
UKIP plan to keep down population growth = encourage people to smoke
Is a few days old, so apols if it was posted at the time
The Solicitor's Regulatory Authority (SRA) has removed a reference to the Law Society's controversial practice note on drafting 'Sharia compliant' wills from its from its ethics guidance on wills.
A spokesperson for the SRA, the regulatory body for solicitors in England and Wales, confirmed to the National Secular Society that it had removed the reference, adding that it had done so "in response to concerns that had been raised".
Andrew Neil is claiming the UK's population has grown 5% since the beginning of the recession, but I see Max downthread says it is 3%.
Either way these are unsustainable figures. If we carry on like this the UK's population will hit 80 million people in 20-30 years. And then what. 90 million? 100 million?
Not likely but so what if it does?
That is a far better alternative than the nihilistic demographic doom facing nations like Italy where low birth rates and emigration mean a growing elderly population can't be properly supported by a declining working age population.
So we adopt a human Ponzi scheme?
Marvellous.
No we don't adopt it now, it was adopted 70 years ago when the twin concepts of pensions and health care neither paid for by savings was introduced. The system can not survive without a good ratio of working age to retired population.
Once life expectancies stop rising and once the baby boomers are retired the growth in population required can slow. But as long as we still face both of those then in order to avoid disaster we need growing populations. A growing population isn't needed to increase the working age population relative to overall as unsustainable ponzi scheme, it is needed just to keep a semblance of parity.
"The system can not survive without a good ratio of working age to retired population."
A "good" ratio isn't defined by raw numbers it's defined by per capita GDP. If per capita GDP is going down then the ability to pay for everything is going DOWN.
It's amazing the total bollox we've been fed for nearly 20 years.
edit: it's not even complicated, it's just arithmetic but because the entire political class were spinning the same line people fell for it
Including some estimates for this year it would take population growth from pre-crash levels to around 4.2%, the population grew by 400k last year, or 0.63%, for GDP per capita to catch up with pre-crisis levels it will take around two years from now.
That means it will have taken nine years after the start of the recession for people's personal wealth to catch up. And people wonder why the Tories are losing votes to UKIP given that over half of all population growth comes from net migration, mostly from within the EU.
It may be a simplistic (and wrong IMO) view to say that migration has made everyone poorer but to the uninitiated the evidence is pretty easy to point at, even if it is misreading the situation.
It is very simplistic and a basic understanding of economics shows it to be wrong. Are we supposed to pander to such ignorance?
Population is growing not just due to net migration, but due to longer life expectancies. As life expectancy continues to grow and the baby boomers retire and the population ages we face a stark conundrum:
Either we must have a growth in population to keep demographics sustainable and support a growing retired generation Or we keep the population the same and as more and more retire we face a demographic crisis of fewer and fewer of working age burdened to support them. Or we reverse longer life expectancies and see the elderly die early keeping population and demographics consistent.
I prefer option one. Growing population is a necessary good thing not a problem. It is a sign of good demographics and growing life expectancy.
Or we raise the pension age, and look to boost productivity.
Andrew Neil is claiming the UK's population has grown 5% since the beginning of the recession, but I see Max downthread says it is 3%.
Either way these are unsustainable figures. If we carry on like this the UK's population will hit 80 million people in 20-30 years. And then what. 90 million? 100 million?
Not likely but so what if it does?
That is a far better alternative than the nihilistic demographic doom facing nations like Italy where low birth rates and emigration mean a growing elderly population can't be properly supported by a declining working age population.
So we adopt a human Ponzi scheme?
Marvellous.
No we don't adopt it now, it was adopted 70 years ago when the twin concepts of pensions and health care neither paid for by savings was introduced.
So what happened to the National Insurance contributions I have paid all my working life?
UKIP would be a bit foolish to waste valuable resources trying to unseat Ed, though they'd be doing Labour a huge favour if they somehow managed it.
I agree that UKIP should not be trying primarily to unseat Ed. A decapitation strategy in and of itself would be a mistake. UKIP - as with all parties - should be aiming to win what it can, where it can.
However, it so happens that if - and it is a very big if - Peter Davies can be persuaded to stand for them, Doncaster North becomes very much a UKIP target. Put another way, he is an ideal fit for the seat and UKIP should have been trying to secure him for it irrespective of who the Labour candidate/MP is. That it happens to be the Labour leader and that he happens to be most definitely not a good fit for the seat just adds to the case but it isn't what makes it.
The fact is that UKIP are doing well in Doncaster even without the very significant boost that Davies would give their campaign: it's not just yesterday's result, it's the local and European elections from May. Add Davies and he would transform them in the seat from a serious option to genuine contenders.
In fact, the perception that UKIP was following a decapitation strategy would work against them: voters don't like being made to be the tools of some party's games. If the pieces do slot into place, they'd be best keeping the campaign resolutely local, if well-supported in funds and bodies.
It was only three months ago that @southamobserver was sarcastically suggesting ukip should try and win in Doncaster, suggesting they had no chance because of a lack of immigration there...
Another epic misread
No, you are making that up I am afraid. What I actually said was that Doncaster was not a place in which there were a lot of immigrants so immigration could not explain UKIP's popularity there. I also said that I thought EdM would hold his seat and probably get over 50% of the vote.
I'll find the quote, I think you suggested ukip should try there, or maybe ed Miliband should be worried... You were unaware of UKIPs popularity, so def wasn't trying to explain it
Including some estimates for this year it would take population growth from pre-crash levels to around 4.2%, the population grew by 400k last year, or 0.63%, for GDP per capita to catch up with pre-crisis levels it will take around two years from now.
That means it will have taken nine years after the start of the recession for people's personal wealth to catch up. And people wonder why the Tories are losing votes to UKIP given that over half of all population growth comes from net migration, mostly from within the EU.
It may be a simplistic (and wrong IMO) view to say that migration has made everyone poorer but to the uninitiated the evidence is pretty easy to point at, even if it is misreading the situation.
It is very simplistic and a basic understanding of economics shows it to be wrong. Are we supposed to pander to such ignorance?
Population is growing not just due to net migration, but due to longer life expectancies. As life expectancy continues to grow and the baby boomers retire and the population ages we face a stark conundrum:
Either we must have a growth in population to keep demographics sustainable and support a growing retired generation Or we keep the population the same and as more and more retire we face a demographic crisis of fewer and fewer of working age burdened to support them. Or we reverse longer life expectancies and see the elderly die early keeping population and demographics consistent.
I prefer option one. Growing population is a necessary good thing not a problem. It is a sign of good demographics and growing life expectancy.
Or we raise the pension age, and look to boost productivity.
Exactly. You have to increase the ratio not just increase the raw numbers and if the majority of immigrants are below the line where cost/benefit is net positive then what you're doing is *reducing* the ratio while increasing the total numbers.
No, what Barton has stated is correct. When even the UN have started to criticise the Israeli action, you know they have broken international law on proportionaility.
Including some estimates for this year it would take population growth from pre-crash levels to around 4.2%, the population grew by 400k last year, or 0.63%, for GDP per capita to catch up with pre-crisis levels it will take around two years from now.
That means it will have taken nine years after the start of the recession for people's personal wealth to catch up. And people wonder why the Tories are losing votes to UKIP given that over half of all population growth comes from net migration, mostly from within the EU.
It may be a simplistic (and wrong IMO) view to say that migration has made everyone poorer but to the uninitiated the evidence is pretty easy to point at, even if it is misreading the situation.
It is very simplistic and a basic understanding of economics shows it to be wrong. Are we supposed to pander to such ignorance?
Population is growing not just due to net migration, but due to longer life expectancies. As life expectancy continues to grow and the baby boomers retire and the population ages we face a stark conundrum:
Either we must have a growth in population to keep demographics sustainable and support a growing retired generation Or we keep the population the same and as more and more retire we face a demographic crisis of fewer and fewer of working age burdened to support them. Or we reverse longer life expectancies and see the elderly die early keeping population and demographics consistent.
I prefer option one. Growing population is a necessary good thing not a problem. It is a sign of good demographics and growing life expectancy.
UKIP plan to keep down population growth = encourage people to smoke
(Pension not having to be paid out) + (Tax revenue from smokers) - ((NHS costs of smoking related illness - (Costs that would otherwise be incurred by the smokers on the NHS) *(Proportion of smokers getting smoking related illnesses)) < 0 or > 0 ?
A country cannot shrink forever and survive. The end point is Siberian emptiness and poverty. The journey there is an unwinding Ponzi. Italy and Japan face a nightmare.
A country cannot grow forever. The end point is Bangladesh or the vertical slums of East Asia and poverty. The journey can be fun for a while but makes the final reckoning even worse and potentially Malthusian.
For the UK - I think we're full enough in the cities and have some room in the countryside. But not sure I'd enjoy the Chinese experience of seeing people EVERYWHERE. So a policy of very gentle population change over a long long time is good in my books. And relative population stability has significant political implications - basically to live within your means and fund your spending (incl pensions).
"The system can not survive without a good ratio of working age to retired population."
A "good" ratio isn't defined by raw numbers it's defined by per capita GDP. If per capita GDP is going down then the ability to pay for everything is going DOWN.
It's amazing the total bollox we've been fed for nearly 20 years.
edit: it's not even complicated, it's just arithmetic but because the entire political class were spinning the same line people fell for it
Yes we haven't recovered the pre-Gordon Brown per capita GDP yet, hence the need for austerity. Without a growing population it'd be permanent (and much harsher) austerity.
Exactly. You have to increase the ratio not just increase the raw numbers and if the majority of immigrants are below the line where cost/benefit is net positive then what you're doing is *reducing* the ratio while increasing the total numbers.
It's all total bollox.
But a basic reading of the economics rather than pandering shows that isn't the case.
UKIP would be a bit foolish to waste valuable resources trying to unseat Ed, though they'd be doing Labour a huge favour if they somehow managed it.
I agree that UKIP should not be trying primarily to unseat Ed. A decapitation strategy in and of itself would be a mistake. UKIP - as with all parties - should be aiming to win what it can, where it can.
However, it so happens that if - and it is a very big if - Peter Davies can be persuaded to stand for them, Doncaster North becomes very much a UKIP target. Put another way, he is an ideal fit for the seat and UKIP should have been trying to secure him for it irrespective of who the Labour candidate/MP is. That it happens to be the Labour leader and that he happens to be most definitely not a good fit for the seat just adds to the case but it isn't what makes it.
The fact is that UKIP are doing well in Doncaster even without the very significant boost that Davies would give their campaign: it's not just yesterday's result, it's the local and European elections from May. Add Davies and he would transform them in the seat from a serious option to genuine contenders.
In fact, the perception that UKIP was following a decapitation strategy would work against them: voters don't like being made to be the tools of some party's games. If the pieces do slot into place, they'd be best keeping the campaign resolutely local, if well-supported in funds and bodies.
It was only three months ago that @southamobserver was sarcastically suggesting ukip should try and win in Doncaster, suggesting they had no chance because of a lack of immigration there...
Another epic misread
No, you are making that up I am afraid. What I actually said was that Doncaster was not a place in which there were a lot of immigrants so immigration could not explain UKIP's popularity there. I also said that I thought EdM would hold his seat and probably get over 50% of the vote.
I'll find the quote, I think you suggested ukip should try there, or maybe ed Miliband should be worried... You were unaware of UKIPs popularity, so def wasn't trying to explain it
Yes, please do. I remember it completely differently as part of a conversation about people seeing their communities changing and voting for UKIP as a result. I was saying that Doncaster was overwhelmingly white and working class, so that could not explain why UKIP was popular there.
No, what Barton has stated is correct. When even the UN have started to criticise the Israeli action, you know they have broken international law on proportionaility.
I'm not going to try and fix the Israeli Palestinian problem, maybe Barton has the answers, but the article sums him up well I think.
I was talking about his arguing tactics more than his view on Israel
@MrJones "It's all total bollox". It's the downside of the "free market" it is about making money, not sorting social problems. We should have governments to sort that, but first they have to make more money.....
Including some estimates for this year it would take population growth from pre-crash levels to around 4.2%, the population grew by 400k last year, or 0.63%, for GDP per capita to catch up with pre-crisis levels it will take around two years from now.
That means it will have taken nine years after the start of the recession for people's personal wealth to catch up. And people wonder why the Tories are losing votes to UKIP given that over half of all population growth comes from net migration, mostly from within the EU.
It may be a simplistic (and wrong IMO) view to say that migration has made everyone poorer but to the uninitiated the evidence is pretty easy to point at, even if it is misreading the situation.
It is very simplistic and a basic understanding of economics shows it to be wrong. Are we supposed to pander to such ignorance?
Population is growing not just due to net migration, but due to longer life expectancies. As life expectancy continues to grow and the baby boomers retire and the population ages we face a stark conundrum:
Either we must have a growth in population to keep demographics sustainable and support a growing retired generation Or we keep the population the same and as more and more retire we face a demographic crisis of fewer and fewer of working age burdened to support them. Or we reverse longer life expectancies and see the elderly die early keeping population and demographics consistent.
I prefer option one. Growing population is a necessary good thing not a problem. It is a sign of good demographics and growing life expectancy.
UKIP plan to keep down population growth = encourage people to smoke
Rhys Williams statement: "I would strongly like to state that I have not knowingly taken any banned substance
He could be telling the truth - food contamination could be a possibility if the values are very low.
Apologies to him if true. I've heard that line from every convicted doper ever however so we will see. Athletics seems to be moving towards a more pragmatic stance of much shorter bans to stop people denying it so we'll see how this one develops.
Including some estimates for this year it would take population growth from pre-crash levels to around 4.2%, the population grew by 400k last year, or 0.63%, for GDP per capita to catch up with pre-crisis levels it will take around two years from now.
That means it will have taken nine years after the start of the recession for people's personal wealth to catch up. And people wonder why the Tories are losing votes to UKIP given that over half of all population growth comes from net migration, mostly from within the EU.
It may be a simplistic (and wrong IMO) view to say that migration has made everyone poorer but to the uninitiated the evidence is pretty easy to point at, even if it is misreading the situation.
It is very simplistic and a basic understanding of economics shows it to be wrong. Are we supposed to pander to such ignorance?
Population is growing not just due to net migration, but due to longer life expectancies. As life expectancy continues to grow and the baby boomers retire and the population ages we face a stark conundrum:
Either we must have a growth in population to keep demographics sustainable and support a growing retired generation Or we keep the population the same and as more and more retire we face a demographic crisis of fewer and fewer of working age burdened to support them. Or we reverse longer life expectancies and see the elderly die early keeping population and demographics consistent.
I prefer option one. Growing population is a necessary good thing not a problem. It is a sign of good demographics and growing life expectancy.
Or we raise the pension age, and look to boost productivity.
Exactly. You have to increase the ratio not just increase the raw numbers and if the majority of immigrants are below the line where cost/benefit is net positive then what you're doing is *reducing* the ratio while increasing the total numbers.
It's all total bollox.
The problem with the UK economy is too much reliance on the service centre. It is the only sector that is ahead of where it was pre the 2008 financial crash. Have you noticed that credit has become more available during the last year or so, with credit cards, store cards and various loans now being offered in huge volumes. The debt advice centres are so inundated with enquiries they can't handle them. Many Citizens Advice bureaus don't apparently have any free appointment times during the next 2 weeks.
It is just a repeat of the problem we had pre 2008, with GDP growth partly based on people spending more than they earn, by using credit. If there is any further problems in the financial sector within the next few years, we could see another recession.
Including some estimates for this year it would take population growth from pre-crash levels to around 4.2%, the population grew by 400k last year, or 0.63%, for GDP per capita to catch up with pre-crisis levels it will take around two years from now.
That means it will have taken nine years after the start of the recession for people's personal wealth to catch up. And people wonder why the Tories are losing votes to UKIP given that over half of all population growth comes from net migration, mostly from within the EU.
It may be a simplistic (and wrong IMO) view to say that migration has made everyone poorer but to the uninitiated the evidence is pretty easy to point at, even if it is misreading the situation.
It is very simplistic and a basic understanding of economics shows it to be wrong. Are we supposed to pander to such ignorance?
Population is growing not just due to net migration, but due to longer life expectancies. As life expectancy continues to grow and the baby boomers retire and the population ages we face a stark conundrum:
Either we must have a growth in population to keep demographics sustainable and support a growing retired generation Or we keep the population the same and as more and more retire we face a demographic crisis of fewer and fewer of working age burdened to support them. Or we reverse longer life expectancies and see the elderly die early keeping population and demographics consistent.
I prefer option one. Growing population is a necessary good thing not a problem. It is a sign of good demographics and growing life expectancy.
UKIP plan to keep down population growth = encourage people to smoke
In fiscal terms, smoking is good news. It boosts tax revenue, and reduces the cost of pensions.
"The system can not survive without a good ratio of working age to retired population."
A "good" ratio isn't defined by raw numbers it's defined by per capita GDP. If per capita GDP is going down then the ability to pay for everything is going DOWN.
It's amazing the total bollox we've been fed for nearly 20 years.
edit: it's not even complicated, it's just arithmetic but because the entire political class were spinning the same line people fell for it
Yes we haven't recovered the pre-Gordon Brown per capita GDP yet, hence the need for austerity. Without a growing population it'd be permanent (and much harsher) austerity.
Exactly. You have to increase the ratio not just increase the raw numbers and if the majority of immigrants are below the line where cost/benefit is net positive then what you're doing is *reducing* the ratio while increasing the total numbers.
It's all total bollox.
But a basic reading of the economics rather than pandering shows that isn't the case.
A rapidly growing population is certainly good news if one is a property owner. If one aspires to become a property owner - less so.
Rhys Williams statement: "I would strongly like to state that I have not knowingly taken any banned substance
He could be telling the truth - food contamination could be a possibility if the values are very low.
If an East European is caught, then he/she is guilty ! If a Brit is caught , there must be a mistake !
Our ones usually don't get caught. They can't be "found" for a year or so. Then they arrive with bulging muscles !
Careful, with that line of reasoning you might start to question why so many athletes are keen to buy in to the mythology of training for distance running in Kenya and sprinting in Jamaica, both remote places where doping officials can't arrive without a day's notice if you watch the airports.
O/T We have spoken on here before about the relationship between how well a company performs and the pay of its CEO, about the justification for super-star compensation packages and about the social consequences of the mega rich becoming ever richer whilst the worker bees' wealth stagnates or goes backwards.
My view has been for a long time that super-star CEOs are seldom, if ever, justify their enormous "compensation" packages. That has been formed by the number of "Blue-Chip" companies that have been destroyed by such CEOs over the years. However, I have seldom seen any good stats to back up my gut-feeling. Now some have emerged from the USA:
Usual caveats apply but there seems to be absolutely no relationship between CEO pay and company performance when measured in share price (probably a reasonable indicator of profitability, shareholder value, etc.). The article also, obiter dicta, contains some other little snippets (e.g. CEO pay to worker pay was 295.9-to-1 last year).
OK this article is based on USA companies, but I suspect that the same result would be found if the research was done over here. I also suspect that the enormous salaries being paid to chief executives in local authorities are also wholly disconnected from the authorities' performance in terms of service delivery, value for money, level of council tax and any other measure you care to mention.
Politically, this is surely an area that Labour could, with benefit, tackle. Suppose they proposed a legal cap on executive pay based on the relationship between the pay at the top with the median salary paid to company employees below board level? It need not be draconian, say 100:1. That would resonate with an awful lot of people. Not to put too fine a point on it, it would be terrifically popular. Yet, despite all the huffing and puffing that would no doubt be generated, it would not make the slightest difference to the performance of the companies concerned, it may even improve them.
Including some estimates for this year it would take population growth from pre-crash levels to around 4.2%, the population grew by 400k last year, or 0.63%, for GDP per capita to catch up with pre-crisis levels it will take around two years from now.
That means it will have taken nine years after the start of the recession for people's personal wealth to catch up. And people wonder why the Tories are losing votes to UKIP given that over half of all population growth comes from net migration, mostly from within the EU.
It may be a simplistic (and wrong IMO) view to say that migration has made everyone poorer but to the uninitiated the evidence is pretty easy to point at, even if it is misreading the situation.
It is very simplistic and a basic understanding of economics shows it to be wrong. Are we supposed to pander to such ignorance?
Population is growing not just due to net migration, but due to longer life expectancies. As life expectancy continues to grow and the baby boomers retire and the population ages we face a stark conundrum:
Either we must have a growth in population to keep demographics sustainable and support a growing retired generation Or we keep the population the same and as more and more retire we face a demographic crisis of fewer and fewer of working age burdened to support them. Or we reverse longer life expectancies and see the elderly die early keeping population and demographics consistent.
I prefer option one. Growing population is a necessary good thing not a problem. It is a sign of good demographics and growing life expectancy.
Yet you accuse others of being simplistic. Resources are finite, where and how do we build schools, houses and hospitals? We have a million idle youngsters, the priority should be getting these people into work not importing others.
UKIP would be a bit foolish to waste valuable resources trying to unseat Ed, though they'd be doing Labour a huge favour if they somehow managed it.
The fact is that UKIP are doing well in Doncaster even without the very significant boost that Davies would give their campaign: it's not just yesterday's result, it's the local and European elections from May. Add Davies and he would transform them in the seat from a serious option to genuine contenders.
In fact, the perception that UKIP was following a decapitation strategy would work against them: voters don't like being made to be the tools of some party's games. If the pieces do slot into place, they'd be best keeping the campaign resolutely local, if well-supported in funds and bodies.
It was only three months ago that @southamobserver was sarcastically suggesting ukip should try and win in Doncaster, suggesting they had no chance because of a lack of immigration there...
Another epic misread
No, you are making that up I am afraid. What I actually said was that Doncaster was not a place in which there were a lot of immigrants so immigration could not explain UKIP's popularity there. I also said that I thought EdM would hold his seat and probably get over 50% of the vote.
I'll find the quote, I think you suggested ukip should try there, or maybe ed Miliband should be worried... You were unaware of UKIPs popularity, so def wasn't trying to explain it
Yes, please do. I remember it completely differently as part of a conversation about people seeing their communities changing and voting for UKIP as a result. I was saying that Doncaster was overwhelmingly white and working class, so that could not explain why UKIP was popular there.
It's bloody difficult to find the conversation!
I remember it as you saying Doncaster was white and working class without a large immigration problem, so how come ukip don't do well there
That was the point, you didn't know that ukip were doing well there until I linked to a telegraph article showing they were already.
You then said well Ed will win easy anyway etc without acknowledging you had messed up
A country cannot shrink forever and survive. The end point is Siberian emptiness and poverty. The journey there is an unwinding Ponzi. Italy and Japan face a nightmare.
A country cannot grow forever. The end point is Bangladesh or the vertical slums of East Asia and poverty. The journey can be fun for a while but makes the final reckoning even worse and potentially Malthusian.
For the UK - I think we're full enough in the cities and have some room in the countryside. But not sure I'd enjoy the Chinese experience of seeing people EVERYWHERE. So a policy of very gentle population change over a long long time is good in my books. And relative population stability has significant political implications - basically to live within your means and fund your spending (incl pensions).
Bangladesh does not have huge population growths. It is high by western standards but not by 3W standards. About 1.8% pa and falling.
GDP growth has averaged about 6% pa for the last 20 years. Exports by about 15-20% pa. No. 42 in GDP world-wide
Just as an aside, there are over 50m mobile phones in Bangladesh.
"The system can not survive without a good ratio of working age to retired population."
A "good" ratio isn't defined by raw numbers it's defined by per capita GDP. If per capita GDP is going down then the ability to pay for everything is going DOWN.
It's amazing the total bollox we've been fed for nearly 20 years.
edit: it's not even complicated, it's just arithmetic but because the entire political class were spinning the same line people fell for it
Yes we haven't recovered the pre-Gordon Brown per capita GDP yet, hence the need for austerity. Without a growing population it'd be permanent (and much harsher) austerity.
Exactly. You have to increase the ratio not just increase the raw numbers and if the majority of immigrants are below the line where cost/benefit is net positive then what you're doing is *reducing* the ratio while increasing the total numbers.
It's all total bollox.
But a basic reading of the economics rather than pandering shows that isn't the case.
A rapidly growing population is certainly good news if one is a property owner. If one aspires to become a property owner - less so.
Build more houses, problem solved (and construction jobs in a productive non-service industry).
I live in the north in one of the fastest growing towns in the country and there are new estates being developed allowing me to buy my first home and get onto the property ladder by buying a new-build house.
O/T We have spoken on here before about the relationship between how well a company performs and the pay of its CEO, about the justification for super-star compensation packages and about the social consequences of the mega rich becoming ever richer whilst the worker bees' wealth stagnates or goes backwards.
My view has been for a long time that super-star CEOs are seldom, if ever, justify their enormous "compensation" packages. That has been formed by the number of "Blue-Chip" companies that have been destroyed by such CEOs over the years. However, I have seldom seen any good stats to back up my gut-feeling. Now some have emerged from the USA:
Usual caveats apply but there seems to be absolutely no relationship between CEO pay and company performance when measured in share price (probably a reasonable indicator of profitability, shareholder value, etc.). The article also, obiter dicta, contains some other little snippets (e.g. CEO pay to worker pay was 295.9-to-1 last year).
OK this article is based on USA companies, but I suspect that the same result would be found if the research was done over here. I also suspect that the enormous salaries being paid to chief executives in local authorities are also wholly disconnected from the authorities' performance in terms of service delivery, value for money, level of council tax and any other measure you care to mention.
Politically, this is surely an area that Labour could, with benefit, tackle. Suppose they proposed a legal cap on executive pay based on the relationship between the pay at the top with the median salary paid to company employees below board level? It need not be draconian, say 100:1. That would resonate with an awful lot of people. Not to put too fine a point on it, it would be terrifically popular. Yet, despite all the huffing and puffing that would no doubt be generated, it would not make the slightest difference to the performance of the companies concerned, it may even improve them.
I agree that many CEOs don't justify their large pay packets but am not convinced it is up to the Government to dictate pay packets in private companies. Surely it is up to the owners/shareholders to make this decision. It is also worth pointing out that these CEOs ought to be handing over over half of their inflated salaries to the Government in the form of taxes so cutting executive pay will cut the Government's tax take.
"The system can not survive without a good ratio of working age to retired population."
A "good" ratio isn't defined by raw numbers it's defined by per capita GDP. If per capita GDP is going down then the ability to pay for everything is going DOWN.
It's amazing the total bollox we've been fed for nearly 20 years.
edit: it's not even complicated, it's just arithmetic but because the entire political class were spinning the same line people fell for it
Yes we haven't recovered the pre-Gordon Brown per capita GDP yet, hence the need for austerity. Without a growing population it'd be permanent (and much harsher) austerity.
Exactly. You have to increase the ratio not just increase the raw numbers and if the majority of immigrants are below the line where cost/benefit is net positive then what you're doing is *reducing* the ratio while increasing the total numbers.
It's all total bollox.
But a basic reading of the economics rather than pandering shows that isn't the case.
A rapidly growing population is certainly good news if one is a property owner. If one aspires to become a property owner - less so.
Build more houses, problem solved (and construction jobs in a productive non-service industry).
I'm sure where there's demand private housebuilders will do just that. When you say: "Build more houses" who are you ADDRESSING?
Either way these are unsustainable figures. If we carry on like this the UK's population will hit 80 million people in 20-30 years. And then what. 90 million? 100 million?
If it's unsustainable then it won't be sustained. The limits on [whatever the limited resources is that makes it unsustainable] will make some of the people live somewhere else.
That said, the UK has plenty of room. The places where rents are going up the most are in or near the cities in the most populated areas, because people want to live near a lot of other people so they can do business with them. When people vote with their feet, they show that they consider higher populations a feature not a bug.
This was how you started the debate on Doncaster. I had previously been saying how ukip were taking WWC votes from labour, bit hadn't mentioned this area
"Doncaster is one of the whitest and most working class constituencies in the UK. If UKIP is really serious about going after the Labour vote it should surely make a real effort there with a high profile candidate. Perhaps even the Nigemeister himself - after all, the locals must feel horribly betrayed by their sitting MP. We should expect a massive switch to UKIP next year, shouldn't we?"
But a basic reading of the economics rather than pandering shows that isn't the case.
But a basic reading of arithmetic says it is.
If you have a money in vs money out ratio of 1:2 and you do need it to be 1:1 then increasing total numbers without changing the ratio makes the total problem worse. If the increasing numbers are young, healthy, not having kids etc i.e. not adding to the "money out" part of the ratio then you might alleviate the problem in the short term while making it worse in the long term. If they are having kids etc and adding to the "money out" part then you're possibly making it worse in the short term also.
Ways to increase the money in vs money out ratio would include - increased productivity - immigration *restricted* to people above the cost/benefit break even line - increase pension age - reduced money out
Oi! We've just qualified in 2nd place in the T20 group with a game to go... Potentially looking forward to a home Quarter Final against the might of Yorkshire coming up.
Usual caveats apply but there seems to be absolutely no relationship between CEO pay and company performance when measured in share price (probably a reasonable indicator of profitability, shareholder value, etc.). The article also, obiter dicta, contains some other little snippets (e.g. CEO pay to worker pay was 295.9-to-1 last year).
OK this article is based on USA companies, but I suspect that the same result would be found if the research was done over here. I also suspect that the enormous salaries being paid to chief executives in local authorities are also wholly disconnected from the authorities' performance in terms of service delivery, value for money, level of council tax and any other measure you care to mention.
Politically, this is surely an area that Labour could, with benefit, tackle. Suppose they proposed a legal cap on executive pay based on the relationship between the pay at the top with the median salary paid to company employees below board level? It need not be draconian, say 100:1. That would resonate with an awful lot of people. Not to put too fine a point on it, it would be terrifically popular. Yet, despite all the huffing and puffing that would no doubt be generated, it would not make the slightest difference to the performance of the companies concerned, it may even improve them.
I agree that many CEOs don't justify their large pay packets but am not convinced it is up to the Government to dictate pay packets in private companies. Surely it is up to the owners/shareholders to make this decision. It is also worth pointing out that these CEOs ought to be handing over over half of their inflated salaries to the Government in the form of taxes so cutting executive pay will cut the Government's tax take.
The Government should not make itself so reliant on the tax-take from a small subset of the economy to the extent that it then dictates government policy more widely. That's the sort of problem Gordon Brown created by relying on bumper taxes from the financial services industry.
If you reduced the share of national income that was paid to the richest 1%, and increased the share of national income that went to everyone else, you would broaden the tax base, and so make it more sustainable.
There are a few problems you could have with this, but the tax-take certainly shouldn't be one of them.
Oi! We've just qualified in 2nd place in the T20 group with a game to go... Potentially looking forward to a home Quarter Final against the might of Yorkshire coming up.
I agree that many CEOs don't justify their large pay packets but am not convinced it is up to the Government to dictate pay packets in private companies. Surely it is up to the owners/shareholders to make this decision. It is also worth pointing out that these CEOs ought to be handing over over half of their inflated salaries to the Government in the form of taxes so cutting executive pay will cut the Government's tax take.
Fair go, Mr Gareth, I am also doubtful of government interference in private contracts. However, as soon as one introduces a minimum wage that principle has been breached. What would be so awful as to introduce a maximum wage? Moreover, the salary of those at the top would be linked to the salary they pay their staff; pay the worker bees more and they can award themselves pay rises too. That would also offset the loss of tax revenue that you mentioned.
I am watching the news this lunchtime and think that Labour are really making some strategic errors.
George Osborne is on the news talking about a long term economic plan and that the tories need to be in power to be running this in the long term to continue the job, Ed Balls is his idiotic parrot like fashion is saying that the tories are complacent - which seems at odds with the impression I got - and that more work needs doing. It is almost as if he is making the case for them, surely Labour want the impression that the job is done on the economy and that things like schools and hospitals can now be managed by them better than the tories.
Next up is Ed Milliband saying he doesn't care about his image which then prompts a list of image problems from BBC including about him looking like Wallace from Wallace and Gromit and about the recent bacon butty photo fail. Seems a bit self defeating to me
They called me at 5pm last night to be part of it - first time I've ever had a polling request from a non-panel company. Annoyingly I was too busy to do it - if the response is 500, do remember to add 0.2% to Labour for my missing contribution :-).
Two great tools to aid profitable political betting over the coming months, hopefully PB.com will also play its part by arranging polls, etc andby encouraging posters to submit attractive opportunities of which there will doubtless be many this side of the General Election.
They called me at 5pm last night to be part of it - first time I've ever had a polling request from a non-panel company. Annoyingly I was too busy to do it - if the response is 500, do remember to add 0.2% to Labour for my missing contribution :-).
This populus poll would be an online poll.
If they phoned you, they want you to be part of the Ashcroft poll.
Build more houses, problem solved (and construction jobs in a productive non-service industry).
I live in the north in one of the fastest growing towns in the country and there are new estates being developed allowing me to buy my first home and get onto the property ladder by buying a new-build house.
"Build more houses"
With a declining per capita GDP building houses people can no longer afford isn't a solution.
"The system can not survive without a good ratio of working age to retired population."
A "good" ratio isn't defined by raw numbers it's defined by per capita GDP. If per capita GDP is going down then the ability to pay for everything is going DOWN.
It's amazing the total bollox we've been fed for nearly 20 years.
edit: it's not even complicated, it's just arithmetic but because the entire political class were spinning the same line people fell for it
Yes we haven't recovered the pre-Gordon Brown per capita GDP yet, hence the need for austerity. Without a growing population it'd be permanent (and much harsher) austerity.
Exactly. You have to increase the ratio not just increase the raw numbers and if the majority of immigrants are below the line where cost/benefit is net positive then what you're doing is *reducing* the ratio while increasing the total numbers.
It's all total bollox.
But a basic reading of the economics rather than pandering shows that isn't the case.
A rapidly growing population is certainly good news if one is a property owner. If one aspires to become a property owner - less so.
Build more houses, problem solved (and construction jobs in a productive non-service industry).
I live in the north in one of the fastest growing towns in the country and there are new estates being developed allowing me to buy my first home and get onto the property ladder by buying a new-build house.
Good for you.
Nice part of warrington wasn't it,well I live in a overcrowding part of Bradford,with more people of poor, low skilled from Eastern Europe not helping the problem
What's good for you,doesn't mean it's good for alot of people.
Two great tools to aid profitable political betting over the coming months, hopefully PB.com will also play its part by arranging polls, etc andby encouraging posters to submit attractive opportunities of which there will doubtless be many this side of the General Election.
I'm going to suggest to Mike we have a PB poll on the 7th of each month between now and the GE, on what we think the outcome will be at the election.
Posters will also be encouraged to post their thoughts on the thread.
Two great tools to aid profitable political betting over the coming months, hopefully PB.com will also play its part by arranging polls, etc andby encouraging posters to submit attractive opportunities of which there will doubtless be many this side of the General Election.
As I said, for those who think the ukip bubble will burst, 8/11 labour in Thurrock must be ridiculous value
Anyone who followed me in in the 16-1 ukip, can back labour and effectively lay the Tories at 7/4
This was how you started the debate on Doncaster. I had previously been saying how ukip were taking WWC votes from labour, bit hadn't mentioned this area
"Doncaster is one of the whitest and most working class constituencies in the UK. If UKIP is really serious about going after the Labour vote it should surely make a real effort there with a high profile candidate. Perhaps even the Nigemeister himself - after all, the locals must feel horribly betrayed by their sitting MP. We should expect a massive switch to UKIP next year, shouldn't we?"
Given your sarcastic nature I think it is obvious you thought you were in to a winner
Then there was a massive switch to ukip in the locals
The next year was, of course, referring to the GE. As I believe I said in other posts, I had no idea how the locals would go. I can't remember, but I think I may even have offered you a vote on Ed getting about 50% of the vote share. Still happy to if you fancy it.
- immigration *restricted* to people above the cost/benefit break even line
I love the idea that the government can figure out which people will be above the cost/benefit line.
I run a small tech startup in Japan. Right now, Japan loves small tech startups. They're coming up with all kinds of ideas that are supposed to attract us to Japan, some of which the taxpayer will actually spend money on. But each career step I've taken to be able to do this - teaching to software engineering (didn't have an engineering degree), setting up in business (company directors are supposed "investors", but you need to put in more money than I had to qualify to be one of those), getting a visa for somebody I was working with (company too small and piddling to sponsor a visa) has involved some kind of trick or dodge to subvert the intentions of the people who wrote the immigration rules.
F1: Azerbaijan is to host a race from 2016. Mildly surprised it isn't going to be next year, but not remotely surprised there's going to be a race there.
This was how you started the debate on Doncaster. I had previously been saying how ukip were taking WWC votes from labour, bit hadn't mentioned this area
"Doncaster is one of the whitest and most working class constituencies in the UK. If UKIP is really serious about going after the Labour vote it should surely make a real effort there with a high profile candidate. Perhaps even the Nigemeister himself - after all, the locals must feel horribly betrayed by their sitting MP. We should expect a massive switch to UKIP next year, shouldn't we?"
Given your sarcastic nature I think it is obvious you thought you were in to a winner
Then there was a massive switch to ukip in the locals
The next year was, of course, referring to the GE. As I believe I said in other posts, I had no idea how the locals would go. I can't remember, but I think I may even have offered you a vote on Ed getting about 50% of the vote share. Still happy to if you fancy it.
There was talk of a bet but nothing was done...
If you want to bet on Ed getting over 50% in Doncaster North at EVS I'm happy to play, how much for?
Build more houses, problem solved (and construction jobs in a productive non-service industry).
I live in the north in one of the fastest growing towns in the country and there are new estates being developed allowing me to buy my first home and get onto the property ladder by buying a new-build house.
"Build more houses"
With a declining per capita GDP building houses people can no longer afford isn't a solution.
Only 8% of the land of the UK is developed. We're still a very green country.
Housing is unaffordable because it is so difficult and expensive to build new houses. This is entirely a factor of the planning laws. The significant majority of the value of a house is the planning permission not the materials. We can house people, and affordably so, if we make planning hassle go away. A profound liberalisation would trigger an immediate explosion in house building - but would of course also collapse house prices. The blocker is the nimbyist block of existing house and land owners.
If Miliband is serious about breaking privilege and helping generation rent he could abolish planning permission. Your land - do with it what you will. But as we all know this would be a brave electoral move (in the Sir Humphrey sense).
I want to offer something different, but I'm not telling you what it is. I'm a weirdo with a plan, a plan I am not sharing with you, but you should vote for me if you like surprises, nasty surprises and very high taxes.
Comments
http://www.kiaoval.com/membership/county/
Once life expectancies stop rising and once the baby boomers are retired the growth in population required can slow. But as long as we still face both of those then in order to avoid disaster we need growing populations. A growing population isn't needed to increase the working age population relative to overall as unsustainable ponzi scheme, it is needed just to keep a semblance of parity.
http://babb.telegraph.co.uk/2014/07/joey-barton-and-yossi-benayoun-attempt-to-bring-peace-to-the-middle-east/
James Chapman (Mail) @jameschappers 6m
@TimMontgomerie @rafaelbehr presenter on BBC Tees just said: 'You keep talking about the River Tyne, Prime Minister. It's not in our region'
Move those goalposts....I bet this becomes the BBC new meme and one of course they had no interest in pre 2010. I guess they have to find something to be negative about after their conspiracy theories about the whole type of jobs and too many entrepreneurs didn't come to much.
Life expectancy at birth now is over 90. So what do you propose retirement age should be? 87? 85?
Doncaster North 2010 Lab share - 47.3%
Doncaster Central 2010 Lab share - 39.7%
Don Valley 2010 Lab share - 37.9%
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/eastleigh/winning-party
Also look at the council results in May 2014:
http://www.eastleigh.gov.uk/pdf/DeclarationBoroughResults2014.pdf
The Solicitor's Regulatory Authority (SRA) has removed a reference to the Law Society's controversial practice note on drafting 'Sharia compliant' wills from its from its ethics guidance on wills.
A spokesperson for the SRA, the regulatory body for solicitors in England and Wales, confirmed to the National Secular Society that it had removed the reference, adding that it had done so "in response to concerns that had been raised".
http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2014/07/the-solicitors-regulation-authority-withdraws-endorsement-of-law-societys-sharia-guidance
A "good" ratio isn't defined by raw numbers it's defined by per capita GDP. If per capita GDP is going down then the ability to pay for everything is going DOWN.
It's amazing the total bollox we've been fed for nearly 20 years.
edit: it's not even complicated, it's just arithmetic but because the entire political class were spinning the same line people fell for it
That's a bad mistake in the tribal north. They might boil him in oil?
Rhys Williams statement: "I would strongly like to state that I have not knowingly taken any banned substance
It's all total bollox.
(Pension not having to be paid out) + (Tax revenue from smokers) - ((NHS costs of smoking related illness - (Costs that would otherwise be incurred by the smokers on the NHS) *(Proportion of smokers getting smoking related illnesses)) < 0 or > 0 ?
Silly me.
A country cannot shrink forever and survive. The end point is Siberian emptiness and poverty. The journey there is an unwinding Ponzi. Italy and Japan face a nightmare.
A country cannot grow forever. The end point is Bangladesh or the vertical slums of East Asia and poverty. The journey can be fun for a while but makes the final reckoning even worse and potentially Malthusian.
For the UK - I think we're full enough in the cities and have some room in the countryside. But not sure I'd enjoy the Chinese experience of seeing people EVERYWHERE. So a policy of very gentle population change over a long long time is good in my books. And relative population stability has significant political implications - basically to live within your means and fund your spending (incl pensions).
I was talking about his arguing tactics more than his view on Israel
5/4 ukip a month out... What a bet that was
"It's all total bollox".
It's the downside of the "free market" it is about making money, not sorting social problems.
We should have governments to sort that, but first they have to make more money.....
(there are of course upsides) edited
Pay as little tax as legally possible and take care of your own healthcare provision and pension needs.
It is just a repeat of the problem we had pre 2008, with GDP growth partly based on people spending more than they earn, by using credit. If there is any further problems in the financial sector within the next few years, we could see another recession.
Our ones usually don't get caught. They can't be "found" for a year or so. Then they arrive with bulging muscles !
My view has been for a long time that super-star CEOs are seldom, if ever, justify their enormous "compensation" packages. That has been formed by the number of "Blue-Chip" companies that have been destroyed by such CEOs over the years. However, I have seldom seen any good stats to back up my gut-feeling. Now some have emerged from the USA:
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/07/23/3463066/ceo-pay-stock-performance/
Usual caveats apply but there seems to be absolutely no relationship between CEO pay and company performance when measured in share price (probably a reasonable indicator of profitability, shareholder value, etc.). The article also, obiter dicta, contains some other little snippets (e.g. CEO pay to worker pay was 295.9-to-1 last year).
OK this article is based on USA companies, but I suspect that the same result would be found if the research was done over here. I also suspect that the enormous salaries being paid to chief executives in local authorities are also wholly disconnected from the authorities' performance in terms of service delivery, value for money, level of council tax and any other measure you care to mention.
Politically, this is surely an area that Labour could, with benefit, tackle. Suppose they proposed a legal cap on executive pay based on the relationship between the pay at the top with the median salary paid to company employees below board level? It need not be draconian, say 100:1. That would resonate with an awful lot of people. Not to put too fine a point on it, it would be terrifically popular. Yet, despite all the huffing and puffing that would no doubt be generated, it would not make the slightest difference to the performance of the companies concerned, it may even improve them.
I remember it as you saying Doncaster was white and working class without a large immigration problem, so how come ukip don't do well there
That was the point, you didn't know that ukip were doing well there until I linked to a telegraph article showing they were already.
You then said well Ed will win easy anyway etc without acknowledging you had messed up
Prof Stephen Fisher has produced his latest weekly estimates of the next general election outcome.
Lets compare those with the probabilities implied by Ladbrokes latest general election betting odds.
https://politicalbookie.wordpress.com/2014/07/25/political-science-vs-betting-markets-wholl-win-the-election/
Contaminated feed apparently.
GDP growth has averaged about 6% pa for the last 20 years. Exports by about 15-20% pa.
No. 42 in GDP world-wide
Just as an aside, there are over 50m mobile phones in Bangladesh.
I live in the north in one of the fastest growing towns in the country and there are new estates being developed allowing me to buy my first home and get onto the property ladder by buying a new-build house.
(Someone posted a video yesterday)
Ah just seen your post (edit)
You can effectively "be Ladbrokes" on the bet at the moment
At tennis?
That said, the UK has plenty of room. The places where rents are going up the most are in or near the cities in the most populated areas, because people want to live near a lot of other people so they can do business with them. When people vote with their feet, they show that they consider higher populations a feature not a bug.
This was how you started the debate on Doncaster. I had previously been saying how ukip were taking WWC votes from labour, bit hadn't mentioned this area
"Doncaster is one of the whitest and most working class constituencies in the UK. If UKIP is really serious about going after the Labour vote it should surely make a real effort there with a high profile candidate. Perhaps even the Nigemeister himself - after all, the locals must feel horribly betrayed by their sitting MP. We should expect a massive switch to UKIP next year, shouldn't we?"
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/1409/politicalbetting-com-blog-archive-cameron-s-big-2015-debate-gamble-to-play-or-to-sabotage/p2
Given your sarcastic nature I think it is obvious you thought you were in to a winner
But there was an anti immigration vote in Doncaster, as I showed here
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timwigmore/100254439/why-labour-should-be-terrified-of-ukip-2/
Then there was a massive switch to ukip in the locals
But a basic reading of arithmetic says it is.
If you have a money in vs money out ratio of 1:2 and you do need it to be 1:1 then increasing total numbers without changing the ratio makes the total problem worse. If the increasing numbers are young, healthy, not having kids etc i.e. not adding to the "money out" part of the ratio then you might alleviate the problem in the short term while making it worse in the long term. If they are having kids etc and adding to the "money out" part then you're possibly making it worse in the short term also.
Ways to increase the money in vs money out ratio would include
- increased productivity
- immigration *restricted* to people above the cost/benefit break even line
- increase pension age
- reduced money out
The Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation News Channel have cut away from the Ed, I'm so crap vote for me speech.
If you reduced the share of national income that was paid to the richest 1%, and increased the share of national income that went to everyone else, you would broaden the tax base, and so make it more sustainable.
There are a few problems you could have with this, but the tax-take certainly shouldn't be one of them.
Christ on a bike, records are going to tumble
George Osborne is on the news talking about a long term economic plan and that the tories need to be in power to be running this in the long term to continue the job, Ed Balls is his idiotic parrot like fashion is saying that the tories are complacent - which seems at odds with the impression I got - and that more work needs doing. It is almost as if he is making the case for them, surely Labour want the impression that the job is done on the economy and that things like schools and hospitals can now be managed by them better than the tories.
Next up is Ed Milliband saying he doesn't care about his image which then prompts a list of image problems from BBC including about him looking like Wallace from Wallace and Gromit and about the recent bacon butty photo fail. Seems a bit self defeating to me
If they phoned you, they want you to be part of the Ashcroft poll.
With a declining per capita GDP building houses people can no longer afford isn't a solution.
Nice part of warrington wasn't it,well I live in a overcrowding part of Bradford,with more people of poor, low skilled from Eastern Europe not helping the problem
What's good for you,doesn't mean it's good for alot of people.
Posters will also be encouraged to post their thoughts on the thread.
Anyone who followed me in in the 16-1 ukip, can back labour and effectively lay the Tories at 7/4
I run a small tech startup in Japan. Right now, Japan loves small tech startups. They're coming up with all kinds of ideas that are supposed to attract us to Japan, some of which the taxpayer will actually spend money on. But each career step I've taken to be able to do this - teaching to software engineering (didn't have an engineering degree), setting up in business (company directors are supposed "investors", but you need to put in more money than I had to qualify to be one of those), getting a visa for somebody I was working with (company too small and piddling to sponsor a visa) has involved some kind of trick or dodge to subvert the intentions of the people who wrote the immigration rules.
This Ed Miliband
pic.twitter.com/77ZKjDYwy6
h/t @MShapland
F1: Azerbaijan is to host a race from 2016. Mildly surprised it isn't going to be next year, but not remotely surprised there's going to be a race there.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/28483319
http://news.sky.com/story/1307348/miliband-i-am-not-your-bacon-sandwich-pm
If you want to bet on Ed getting over 50% in Doncaster North at EVS I'm happy to play, how much for?
Housing is unaffordable because it is so difficult and expensive to build new houses. This is entirely a factor of the planning laws. The significant majority of the value of a house is the planning permission not the materials. We can house people, and affordably so, if we make planning hassle go away. A profound liberalisation would trigger an immediate explosion in house building - but would of course also collapse house prices. The blocker is the nimbyist block of existing house and land owners.
If Miliband is serious about breaking privilege and helping generation rent he could abolish planning permission. Your land - do with it what you will. But as we all know this would be a brave electoral move (in the Sir Humphrey sense).
I'm a weirdo with a plan, a plan I am not sharing with you, but you should vote for me if you like surprises, nasty surprises and very high taxes.
"If you want a guy who can eat a bacon sandwich or fix the economy I helped feck over, then vote for the other guy..."
Ed tells FT's George Parker he has no intention of cancelling the search for an £80k a year image guru