Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Rochester leaflet that points to how CON will try to ma

245

Comments

  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091



    It would have dropped, obviously. The deficit drops as the economy recovers even without the government trying, and Gordon Brown was only really spendy when he was trying to get the Labour leadership (which unfortunately took a lot longer than it was supposed to, as Blair refused to go...), then right after the world economy fell off a cliff (which any non-bonkers chancellor would have done).

    But Labour have opposed all the cuts that the Tories have proposed. How much would the deficit have fallen if the government had cut nothing since 2010?
    They're in opposition, silly. Of course they opposed the cuts. That doesn't mean they wouldn't have made most of them themselves if they'd been in government...
    So you're implying that, had Brown won, the Tories would have oppose every cut that Lab made simply because they're the opposition? The only way I can believe that is if they were opposing the cuts for not being sufficiently deep.
    They'd certainly have criticized them, and blamed them on Labour's mismanagement of the economy. They'd have outright opposed other deficit reduction measures like the VAT increase, which they'd have rightly accused Labour of secretly planning during the 2010 campaign.
    That's the point right there; Labour wouldn't have made anything like meaningful cuts, they would have jacked up taxes (on evil bankers) to cut the deficit.
    That's not how British politics works. Labour would have had an easier time cutting spending than the Tories, since their main threat would have been coming from the right.

    It's easy to get misled by this if you make the mistake of believing what politicians say, because the volume of the rhetoric is inversely proportional to the actual difference between the parties.
    I think, rather, that this explains one of Miliband's myriad problems; he knows he'd have to make cuts but he can't say where because it'll scare off Labour's base support. So he says nothing.
    Agreed. Politically I think this is his best strategy under the circumstances - I can't think of a better one.
    How about if he says he won't make cuts, then doesn't make cuts when he gets into government? Thus aligning himself with the 60% of the public (according to a Lord Ashcroft poll) who say they see no need for 5 years more of cuts.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406
    Oil watch: £53.27/Barrel.
  • Indigo said:

    antifrank said:

    antifrank said:


    In a couple of hours, I expect the conclusion will be reached that the sandwiches ought to make themselves.

    Where the anti-immigration people's policy actually leads is that the people get replaced by imported sandwiches or a sandwich-making machine made somewhere with cheaper labour.
    Once you realise that the driving force is xenophobia rather than looking after the interests of the local population, you realise that the anti-immigration people would be entirely comfortable with that outcome.
    You really are on a roll today. I am strongly in favor of controlled immigration to the UK, in the manner of the Australian or Canadian points system, and yet I manage to be married to an immigrant, have adopted an immigrant, and be currently teaching poor children in a third world country.. xenophobia ?

    At the very least, you are wallowing in impossibilism (good luck trying to persuade people on benefits to work 35 hours a week for no more money because it's good for their soul). Instead of wanting the world to be how you would like it to be, try dealing with the world as it actually is. Someone has to make the sandwiches. Why not immigrants who are ready and willing to do so?
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966



    Agreed. Politically I think this is his best strategy under the circumstances - I can't think of a better one.

    I assume this is going to become a problem in the actual campaign, and doubly so if there are the long anticipated TV debates, he is either going to have to get of the fence, or its going to become obvious very fast that he is dodging the question, and its much more likely that his target audience will be watching.
  • Swiss_Bob said:

    Swiss_Bob said:

    This has piqued my interest - Micheal White on next Labour leader (who he says will not replace Ed before 2015):


    "Who will that be? I don’t know, but I have one or two names that the pundits never mention. I’m keeping them a secret."

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2014/nov/10/ed-miliband-plot-labour-leadership-conservative-party

    Who could he mean? Stella?

    Alistair Darling!

    I have got money on him at 50-1 :-)
    Me too. But he is standing down as an MP, so I think we need a re-think. I'm not interested in favourites, looking for value.
    50-1 isn't value?

    I don't know whether you saw the reasoning I gave yesterday.

    1. He would get most of the Scottish vote out.
    2. Voters consider him to be economically sound.
    3. He's a 'big beast'.
    4. Who would want to be in the Labour party run by Ed? So no issue about him standing down as he'd be back like a shot if he thought he would be PM.
    5. 1-4 make him the next PM.
    Its value, but I'm losing faith as he is standing down. I like your reasoning, except the 4th. He strikes me as an up-front kind of person. If he is planning to retire then he means it. The other problem is that we may well have seen the last Scottish PM for a very long time whilst the whole English/Scottish votes sorts itself out.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Does anyone, here or anywhere else, actually believe that the deficit wouldn't have increased under Brown if he'd won the election?

    It would have dropped, obviously. The deficit drops as the economy recovers even without the government trying, and Gordon Brown was only really spendy when he was trying to get the Labour leadership (which unfortunately took a lot longer than it was supposed to, as Blair refused to go...), then right after the world economy fell off a cliff (which any non-bonkers chancellor would have done).
    You do know that's garbage, right?

    The issue wasn't that Brown spent in 2008, it was *how* he spent.

    He didn't go for counter-cyclical activity/rescue the banks.

    He embedded a massive *structural* deficit into the economy.

    That's the issue

  • isam said:

    antifrank said:

    antifrank said:


    In a couple of hours, I expect the conclusion will be reached that the sandwiches ought to make themselves.

    Where the anti-immigration people's policy actually leads is that the people get replaced by imported sandwiches or a sandwich-making machine made somewhere with cheaper labour.
    Once you realise that the driving force is xenophobia rather than looking after the interests of the local population, you realise that the anti-immigration people would be entirely comfortable with that outcome.

    Indeed, Nigel Farage has openly acknowledged that he would prefer to see Britain's economy impaired rather than keep current levels of immigration:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10555158/Id-rather-be-poorer-with-fewer-migrants-Farage-says.html
    Using GDP as a smokescreen while enabling the rich get to richer at the expense of the poor who get poorer is no way to run a country, and is why the three parties that endorsed that policy in Government are in freefall
    Nigel Farage said nothing about GDP. He referred to us all being slightly richer, and rejected that:

    “If you said to me, would I like to see over the next ten years a further five million people come in to Britain and if that happened we’d all be slightly richer, I’d say, I’d rather we weren’t slightly richer, and I’d rather we had communities that were united and where young unemployed British people had a realistic chance of getting a job.

    “I think the social side of this matters more than pure market economics.”

    Nigel Farage would rather we were all slightly poorer, to satisfy his inward-looking vision of what Britain should look like.
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    Ishmael_X said:

    antifrank said:


    In a couple of hours, I expect the conclusion will be reached that the sandwiches ought to make themselves.

    Where the anti-immigration people's policy actually leads is that the people get replaced by imported sandwiches or a sandwich-making machine made somewhere with cheaper labour.
    The Earl of Sandwich has opened a sandwich shop according to the press. Don't know where that leaves your point, but it does mean he can wrong-foot the apostrophe police by putting up a sign saying SANDWICH'S.
    If he opened it in Sandwich, he could call it Sandwich's Sandwich's Sandwiches
  • Swiss_Bob said:

    Swiss_Bob said:

    This has piqued my interest - Micheal White on next Labour leader (who he says will not replace Ed before 2015):


    "Who will that be? I don’t know, but I have one or two names that the pundits never mention. I’m keeping them a secret."

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2014/nov/10/ed-miliband-plot-labour-leadership-conservative-party

    Who could he mean? Stella?

    Alistair Darling!

    I have got money on him at 50-1 :-)
    Me too. But he is standing down as an MP, so I think we need a re-think. I'm not interested in favourites, looking for value.
    50-1 isn't value?

    I don't know whether you saw the reasoning I gave yesterday.

    1. He would get most of the Scottish vote out.
    2. Voters consider him to be economically sound.
    3. He's a 'big beast'.
    4. Who would want to be in the Labour party run by Ed? So no issue about him standing down as he'd be back like a shot if he thought he would be PM.
    5. 1-4 make him the next PM.
    Its value, but I'm losing faith as he is standing down. I like your reasoning, except the 4th. He strikes me as an up-front kind of person. If he is planning to retire then he means it. The other problem is that we may well have seen the last Scottish PM for a very long time whilst the whole English/Scottish votes sorts itself out.
    My 26/1 on Johnson (Alan) as next PM is looking a bit sickier after todays show of shadow cabinet support for Ed, but I've not given up hope.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    Charles said:

    Does anyone, here or anywhere else, actually believe that the deficit wouldn't have increased under Brown if he'd won the election?

    It would have dropped, obviously. The deficit drops as the economy recovers even without the government trying, and Gordon Brown was only really spendy when he was trying to get the Labour leadership (which unfortunately took a lot longer than it was supposed to, as Blair refused to go...), then right after the world economy fell off a cliff (which any non-bonkers chancellor would have done).
    You do know that's garbage, right?

    The issue wasn't that Brown spent in 2008, it was *how* he spent.

    He didn't go for counter-cyclical activity/rescue the banks.

    He embedded a massive *structural* deficit into the economy.

    That's the issue

    Because otherwise, unemployment would have spiralled and demand in the economy would've collapsed.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Indigo said:


    Funny how many of them seems to end up selling a couple of Big Issues and claiming a load of in-work benefits then.

    How many is that? Feel free to make a reasonable estimate if you don't have any official numbers. Then divide by the total number of EU immigrants and let us know what you get.
    I think John Bird said 20% of the Big Issue salesforce.

    Don't know the numbers, but you are talking in the hundreds, I'd assume
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    antifrank said:

    isam said:

    antifrank said:

    antifrank said:


    In a couple of hours, I expect the conclusion will be reached that the sandwiches ought to make themselves.

    Where the anti-immigration people's policy actually leads is that the people get replaced by imported sandwiches or a sandwich-making machine made somewhere with cheaper labour.
    Once you realise that the driving force is xenophobia rather than looking after the interests of the local population, you realise that the anti-immigration people would be entirely comfortable with that outcome.

    Indeed, Nigel Farage has openly acknowledged that he would prefer to see Britain's economy impaired rather than keep current levels of immigration:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10555158/Id-rather-be-poorer-with-fewer-migrants-Farage-says.html
    Using GDP as a smokescreen while enabling the rich get to richer at the expense of the poor who get poorer is no way to run a country, and is why the three parties that endorsed that policy in Government are in freefall
    Nigel Farage said nothing about GDP. He referred to us all being slightly richer, and rejected that:

    “If you said to me, would I like to see over the next ten years a further five million people come in to Britain and if that happened we’d all be slightly richer, I’d say, I’d rather we weren’t slightly richer, and I’d rather we had communities that were united and where young unemployed British people had a realistic chance of getting a job.

    “I think the social side of this matters more than pure market economics.”

    Nigel Farage would rather we were all slightly poorer, to satisfy his inward-looking vision of what Britain should look like.
    Nigel's City chums will get richer.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited November 2014
    Swiss_Bob said:

    Swiss_Bob said:

    This has piqued my interest - Micheal White on next Labour leader (who he says will not replace Ed before 2015):


    "Who will that be? I don’t know, but I have one or two names that the pundits never mention. I’m keeping them a secret."

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2014/nov/10/ed-miliband-plot-labour-leadership-conservative-party

    Who could he mean? Stella?

    Alistair Darling!

    I have got money on him at 50-1 :-)
    Me too. But he is standing down as an MP, so I think we need a re-think. I'm not interested in favourites, looking for value.
    50-1 isn't value?

    I don't know whether you saw the reasoning I gave yesterday.

    1. He would get most of the Scottish vote out.
    2. Voters consider him to be economically sound.
    3. He's a 'big beast'.
    4. Who would want to be in the Labour party run by Ed? So no issue about him standing down as he'd be back like a shot if he thought he would be PM.
    5. 1-4 make him the next PM.
    I thought he was stepping down?

    Jon Cruddas is the man who might win back the old WWC.. if Stella Creasy was in charge I think Labour would cease to exist, maybe they'd merge with respect?
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited November 2014
    Danny565 said:


    How about if he says he won't make cuts, then doesn't make cuts when he gets into government? Thus aligning himself with the 60% of the public (according to a Lord Ashcroft poll) who say they see no need for 5 years more of cuts.

    Then the bond markets eat him and the country alive, and we end up calling in the IMF.

  • antifrank said:

    isam said:

    antifrank said:

    antifrank said:


    In a couple of hours, I expect the conclusion will be reached that the sandwiches ought to make themselves.

    Where the anti-immigration people's policy actually leads is that the people get replaced by imported sandwiches or a sandwich-making machine made somewhere with cheaper labour.
    Once you realise that the driving force is xenophobia rather than looking after the interests of the local population, you realise that the anti-immigration people would be entirely comfortable with that outcome.

    Indeed, Nigel Farage has openly acknowledged that he would prefer to see Britain's economy impaired rather than keep current levels of immigration:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10555158/Id-rather-be-poorer-with-fewer-migrants-Farage-says.html
    Using GDP as a smokescreen while enabling the rich get to richer at the expense of the poor who get poorer is no way to run a country, and is why the three parties that endorsed that policy in Government are in freefall
    Nigel Farage said nothing about GDP. He referred to us all being slightly richer, and rejected that:

    “If you said to me, would I like to see over the next ten years a further five million people come in to Britain and if that happened we’d all be slightly richer, I’d say, I’d rather we weren’t slightly richer, and I’d rather we had communities that were united and where young unemployed British people had a realistic chance of getting a job.

    “I think the social side of this matters more than pure market economics.”

    Nigel Farage would rather we were all slightly poorer, to satisfy his inward-looking vision of what Britain should look like.
    Indeed. UKIP wants to make us all poorer. Period.

  • Swiss_BobSwiss_Bob Posts: 619
    edited November 2014

    Swiss_Bob said:

    Swiss_Bob said:

    This has piqued my interest - Micheal White on next Labour leader (who he says will not replace Ed before 2015):


    "Who will that be? I don’t know, but I have one or two names that the pundits never mention. I’m keeping them a secret."

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2014/nov/10/ed-miliband-plot-labour-leadership-conservative-party

    Who could he mean? Stella?

    Alistair Darling!

    I have got money on him at 50-1 :-)
    Me too. But he is standing down as an MP, so I think we need a re-think. I'm not interested in favourites, looking for value.
    50-1 isn't value?

    I don't know whether you saw the reasoning I gave yesterday.

    1. He would get most of the Scottish vote out.
    2. Voters consider him to be economically sound.
    3. He's a 'big beast'.
    4. Who would want to be in the Labour party run by Ed? So no issue about him standing down as he'd be back like a shot if he thought he would be PM.
    5. 1-4 make him the next PM.
    Its value, but I'm losing faith as he is standing down. I like your reasoning, except the 4th. He strikes me as an up-front kind of person. If he is planning to retire then he means it. The other problem is that we may well have seen the last Scottish PM for a very long time whilst the whole English/Scottish votes sorts itself out.
    Re the fourth point.

    You work for a company in a very senior position, there's a takeover and a new boss comes in, younger than you, he's a twat. Your choices are stay and accept demotion or take early retirement and maybe pick up a few directorships and charities to work for.

    Before you've completely made your mind up the board decides the new guy IS a [moderated] and offer you the top job.

    What would you do, especially if it meant you could fire Balls.


  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    edited November 2014

    antifrank said:


    In a couple of hours, I expect the conclusion will be reached that the sandwiches ought to make themselves.

    Where the anti-immigration people's policy actually leads is that the people get replaced by imported sandwiches or a sandwich-making machine made somewhere with cheaper labour.
    You have chosen live in a country, Japan , famously averse to uncontrolled immigration. I don't think we should take anything you have to say on this topic seriously, should we ?
    It makes some of the effects I'm talking about very obvious. For example, the thing I was talking about with sandwiches has happened with coffee: People used to buy their coffee in coffee shops where somebody would make their coffee for them for 250 yen. Now they buy their coffee for 100 yen in convenience stores, but instead of someone getting paid to make it you get given a cup and a plastic pod of coffee which you stick in the machine yourself. Less low-skilled work in shops in Japan, more work wherever they make the machine and the pods.

    Edit to add: The policy has also produced a demographic crisis which politicians try to solve by ineffectually urging women to have more babies, and the fiscal shadow of the demographic crisis, a national debt and pension liability that nobody can even begin to imagine how to pay off.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,366
    antifrank,

    "Someone has to make the sandwiches. Why not immigrants who are ready and willing to do so?"

    Because British politicians are meant to be looking after the people who vote for them, not nationals of another country. A world government, if one ever came about, would have that sort of role.

    Oops, better not give the EU ideas.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    antifrank said:

    isam said:

    antifrank said:

    antifrank said:


    In a couple of hours, I expect the conclusion will be reached that the sandwiches ought to make themselves.

    Where the anti-immigration people's policy actually leads is that the people get replaced by imported sandwiches or a sandwich-making machine made somewhere with cheaper labour.
    Once you realise that the driving force is xenophobia rather than looking after the interests of the local population, you realise that the anti-immigration people would be entirely comfortable with that outcome.

    Indeed, Nigel Farage has openly acknowledged that he would prefer to see Britain's economy impaired rather than keep current levels of immigration:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10555158/Id-rather-be-poorer-with-fewer-migrants-Farage-says.html
    Using GDP as a smokescreen while enabling the rich get to richer at the expense of the poor who get poorer is no way to run a country, and is why the three parties that endorsed that policy in Government are in freefall
    Nigel Farage said nothing about GDP. He referred to us all being slightly richer, and rejected that:

    “If you said to me, would I like to see over the next ten years a further five million people come in to Britain and if that happened we’d all be slightly richer, I’d say, I’d rather we weren’t slightly richer, and I’d rather we had communities that were united and where young unemployed British people had a realistic chance of getting a job.

    “I think the social side of this matters more than pure market economics.”

    Nigel Farage would rather we were all slightly poorer, to satisfy his inward-looking vision of what Britain should look like.
    Indeed. UKIP wants to make us all poorer. Period.

    Any by implication LDs don't care what happens to society as long as we all get a bit richer...
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    edited November 2014
    Why not immigrants who are ready and willing to do so?

    Perhaps because under this arrangement we are paying twice??

    once to keep 'Brits' on unemployment benefit, and once to top up the wages of low paid foreign workers with tax credits. And provide their free health care. And schooling for unlimited children for both groups.

    Who makes the sandwiches in 'points system' countries like Australia and Canada...??? We need to look further afield for low budget catering examples.
  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    edited November 2014
    antifrank said:

    isam said:

    antifrank said:

    antifrank said:


    In a couple of hours, I expect the conclusion will be reached that the sandwiches ought to make themselves.

    Where the anti-immigration people's policy actually leads is that the people get replaced by imported sandwiches or a sandwich-making machine made somewhere with cheaper labour.
    Once you realise that the driving force is xenophobia rather than looking after the interests of the local population, you realise that the anti-immigration people would be entirely comfortable with that outcome.

    Indeed, Nigel Farage has openly acknowledged that he would prefer to see Britain's economy impaired rather than keep current levels of immigration:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10555158/Id-rather-be-poorer-with-fewer-migrants-Farage-says.html
    Using GDP as a smokescreen while enabling the rich get to richer at the expense of the poor who get poorer is no way to run a country, and is why the three parties that endorsed that policy in Government are in freefall
    Nigel Farage said nothing about GDP. He referred to us all being slightly richer, and rejected that:

    “If you said to me, would I like to see over the next ten years a further five million people come in to Britain and if that happened we’d all be slightly richer, I’d say, I’d rather we weren’t slightly richer, and I’d rather we had communities that were united and where young unemployed British people had a realistic chance of getting a job.

    “I think the social side of this matters more than pure market economics.”

    Nigel Farage would rather we were all slightly poorer, to satisfy his inward-looking vision of what Britain should look like.
    As Bobby Kennedy said , GDP measures everything, except that which makes life worthwhile.
  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    edited November 2014

    antifrank said:


    In a couple of hours, I expect the conclusion will be reached that the sandwiches ought to make themselves.

    Where the anti-immigration people's policy actually leads is that the people get replaced by imported sandwiches or a sandwich-making machine made somewhere with cheaper labour.
    No, a 10p increase in the production cost of a sandwich to pay for higher wages to attract Brits would not drive the operation to imports. The shipping, storage and quality issues would counter act that. Because the company can import cheap labour it chooses that option rather than increasing the wage rate offered to Brits.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited November 2014
    antifrank said:

    isam said:

    antifrank said:

    antifrank said:


    In a couple of hours, I expect the conclusion will be reached that the sandwiches ought to make themselves.

    Where the anti-immigration people's policy actually leads is that the people get replaced by imported sandwiches or a sandwich-making machine made somewhere with cheaper labour.
    Once you realise that the driving force is xenophobia rather than looking after the interests of the local population, you realise that the anti-immigration people would be entirely comfortable with that outcome.

    Indeed, Nigel Farage has openly acknowledged that he would prefer to see Britain's economy impaired rather than keep current levels of immigration:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10555158/Id-rather-be-poorer-with-fewer-migrants-Farage-says.html
    Using GDP as a smokescreen while enabling the rich get to richer at the expense of the poor who get poorer is no way to run a country, and is why the three parties that endorsed that policy in Government are in freefall
    Nigel Farage said nothing about GDP. He referred to us all being slightly richer, and rejected that:

    “If you said to me, would I like to see over the next ten years a further five million people come in to Britain and if that happened we’d all be slightly richer, I’d say, I’d rather we weren’t slightly richer, and I’d rather we had communities that were united and where young unemployed British people had a realistic chance of getting a job.

    “I think the social side of this matters more than pure market economics.”

    Nigel Farage would rather we were all slightly poorer, to satisfy his inward-looking vision of what Britain should look like.
    Well Farage's error there is that if a further five million people come into Britain there is no way we would all be slightly richer

    The big businesses that employ cheap Labour would have bigger profit margins, but the customer would still pay the same if not more, and the British working class would be significantly poorer.

    Just as is the case now thanks to mass immigration of cheap labour in the last decade

    But he is right that British people would rather be slightly worse off than live somewhere with no sense of community.. that's why there are more people coming to the UK from Eastern Europe than vice versa
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Ishmael_X said:

    antifrank said:


    In a couple of hours, I expect the conclusion will be reached that the sandwiches ought to make themselves.

    Where the anti-immigration people's policy actually leads is that the people get replaced by imported sandwiches or a sandwich-making machine made somewhere with cheaper labour.
    The Earl of Sandwich has opened a sandwich shop according to the press. Don't know where that leaves your point, but it does mean he can wrong-foot the apostrophe police by putting up a sign saying SANDWICH'S.
    It's actually quite a large chain, owned by Robert Earl (the founder of planet hollywood). John Montagu has a relatively small stake in the business.
  • KentRisingKentRising Posts: 2,917
    edited November 2014
    antifrank said:

    isam said:

    antifrank said:

    antifrank said:


    In a couple of hours, I expect the conclusion will be reached that the sandwiches ought to make themselves.

    Where the anti-immigration people's policy actually leads is that the people get replaced by imported sandwiches or a sandwich-making machine made somewhere with cheaper labour.
    Once you realise that the driving force is xenophobia rather than looking after the interests of the local population, you realise that the anti-immigration people would be entirely comfortable with that outcome.

    Indeed, Nigel Farage has openly acknowledged that he would prefer to see Britain's economy impaired rather than keep current levels of immigration:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10555158/Id-rather-be-poorer-with-fewer-migrants-Farage-says.html
    Using GDP as a smokescreen while enabling the rich get to richer at the expense of the poor who get poorer is no way to run a country, and is why the three parties that endorsed that policy in Government are in freefall
    Nigel Farage said nothing about GDP. He referred to us all being slightly richer, and rejected that:

    “If you said to me, would I like to see over the next ten years a further five million people come in to Britain and if that happened we’d all be slightly richer, I’d say, I’d rather we weren’t slightly richer, and I’d rather we had communities that were united and where young unemployed British people had a realistic chance of getting a job.

    “I think the social side of this matters more than pure market economics.”

    Nigel Farage would rather we were all slightly poorer, to satisfy his inward-looking vision of what Britain should look like.
    Nothing Farage says there is remotely controversial if you believe national cohesion and helping the left behind in society is more important than whether Nigel and Nigella middle-upper class in Hampstead can afford their Cayman Island holiday or not.

  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966


    Edit to add: Also a demographic crisis which politicians try to solve by ineffectually urging women to have more babies, and the fiscal shadow of the demographic crisis, a national debt and pension liability that nobody can even begin to imagine how to pay off.

    Doesn't using immigrant workers to solve demographic issues amount to a Ponzi scheme. They will in turn get old and need a pension and then the only way you can pay those pensions is to bring in more people to work.

  • Mr. Bob, it was engage them, or lose the city.

    And, unlike Athens, Carthage didn't have a host of allies with a stake in defeating their powerful enemy. Carthage falling = war over.
  • Swiss_Bob said:

    Swiss_Bob said:

    Swiss_Bob said:

    This has piqued my interest - Micheal White on next Labour leader (who he says will not replace Ed before 2015):


    "Who will that be? I don’t know, but I have one or two names that the pundits never mention. I’m keeping them a secret."

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2014/nov/10/ed-miliband-plot-labour-leadership-conservative-party

    Who could he mean? Stella?

    Alistair Darling!

    I have got money on him at 50-1 :-)
    Me too. But he is standing down as an MP, so I think we need a re-think. I'm not interested in favourites, looking for value.
    50-1 isn't value?

    I don't know whether you saw the reasoning I gave yesterday.

    1. He would get most of the Scottish vote out.
    2. Voters consider him to be economically sound.
    3. He's a 'big beast'.
    4. Who would want to be in the Labour party run by Ed? So no issue about him standing down as he'd be back like a shot if he thought he would be PM.
    5. 1-4 make him the next PM.
    Its value, but I'm losing faith as he is standing down. I like your reasoning, except the 4th. He strikes me as an up-front kind of person. If he is planning to retire then he means it. The other problem is that we may well have seen the last Scottish PM for a very long time whilst the whole English/Scottish votes sorts itself out.
    Re the fourth point.

    You work for a company in a very senior position, there's a takeover and a new boss comes in, younger than you, he's a twat. Your choices are stay and accept demotion or take early retirement and maybe pick up a few directorships and charities to work for.

    Before you've completely made your mind up the board decides the new guy IS a [moderated] and offer you the top job.

    What would you do, especially if it meant you could fire Balls.


    Hmm. Except politics isn't like that. No one is going to be 'offered' the top job unless Ed goes under a bus in the next month. After May its a big, summer long leadership election with god knows how many candidates. Or, Ed just goes on as there is the prospect of a 2nd election within a year (1974 scenario) - a point no commentator seems to have picked up on.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited November 2014
    Even as a certified bleeding-heart liberal, the argument that immigrants "do jobs that Brits won't do / are unable to do" makes me wince. It wasn't that long ago that firms were expected to pay for young employees to have some training.

    At some point, if we want to avoid "society" disintegrating altogether, we're going to have to ask ourselves whether businesses SHOULD be expected to have some social duties/responsibilities, rather than just being out to line their pockets as much as possible with the cheapest and most "efficient" labour they can find.
  • antifrank said:


    In a couple of hours, I expect the conclusion will be reached that the sandwiches ought to make themselves.

    Where the anti-immigration people's policy actually leads is that the people get replaced by imported sandwiches or a sandwich-making machine made somewhere with cheaper labour.
    No, a 10p increase in the production cost of a sandwich to pay for higher wages to attract Brits would not drive the operation to imports. The shipping, storage and quality issues would couter act that. Because the company can import cheap labour it chooses that option rather than increasing the wage rate offered to Brits.
    Sure it would, these are all marginal effects so that each 1p you add on the price of local labour adds to the incentive to substitute imports. There are a lot of gradations between here and fully robotic sandwich-making - for example, if you import more food ready-prepared rather than preparing it yourself, you can employ fewer people.

    Another Japan example: The low-end restaurant chain Saizeriya prepares food without knives. Anything requiring a knife is already cut and packaged by the time it gets to the kitchen.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406
    On the sandwiches:

    http://www.aplitrak.com/?adid=bC5maXR6Z2VyYWxkLjQ4MDQxLjE3NjBAZ3JlZW5jb3JlLmFwbGl0cmFrLmNvbQ

    English job description

    http://www.jobinfo.hu/allas/szendvics-csomagolas-es-keszites-northampton-anglia/nagy-britannia/3328807/wrkn/sponz/?sc=490

    Hungarian.

    The Hungarian description of the jobs does seem a touch more detailed, both webpages were fairly easily found by a google for sandwich making job Northampton.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937

    Ishmael_X said:

    antifrank said:


    In a couple of hours, I expect the conclusion will be reached that the sandwiches ought to make themselves.

    Where the anti-immigration people's policy actually leads is that the people get replaced by imported sandwiches or a sandwich-making machine made somewhere with cheaper labour.
    The Earl of Sandwich has opened a sandwich shop according to the press. Don't know where that leaves your point, but it does mean he can wrong-foot the apostrophe police by putting up a sign saying SANDWICH'S.
    If he opened it in Sandwich, he could call it Sandwich's Sandwich's Sandwiches
    Surely it would have to be Sandwich's Sandwich Sandwiches?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,147
    edited November 2014
    Swiss_Bob said:

    Swiss_Bob said:

    This has piqued my interest - Micheal White on next Labour leader (who he says will not replace Ed before 2015):


    "Who will that be? I don’t know, but I have one or two names that the pundits never mention. I’m keeping them a secret."

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2014/nov/10/ed-miliband-plot-labour-leadership-conservative-party

    Who could he mean? Stella?

    Alistair Darling!

    I have got money on him at 50-1 :-)
    Me too. But he is standing down as an MP, so I think we need a re-think. I'm not interested in favourites, looking for value.
    50-1 isn't value?

    I don't know whether you saw the reasoning I gave yesterday.

    1. He would get most of the Scottish vote out.
    2. Voters consider him to be economically sound.
    3. He's a 'big beast'.
    4. Who would want to be in the Labour party run by Ed? So no issue about him standing down as he'd be back like a shot if he thought he would be PM.
    5. 1-4 make him the next PM.
    They're delaying selecting his replacement, if you're looking for a straw to clutch.

    '‘London Labour’ fears delay Darling replacement'

    http://tinyurl.com/nx6nopl

    I think you overestimate his ability to get the Scottish Labour vote out (unless you mean the core 23-28% in recent polls). He had 2 years to do it in the referendum, and look how that turned out.
  • It needs to be remembered that most people do not work for the love of it but to earn money to spend on things they want.

    So talking about jobs only works if the people in employment are earning what they need, otherwise they get angry.

    This is the difference between now and 1983 to 1992, at that time people in employment were getting real increases year after year in their employment earnings.

    Now they're not.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,366
    Mr Smithson. antifrank,

    The problem is that the perception, and the perception is that only some people benefit from new, young immigrants. They tend to be... roll of the drums .... the so-called metropolitan and liberal elite.

    And you have to keep importing people to keep up the financial benefit.

    And they tend to mix with educated immigrants, rather than those (who may be educated) doing unskilled work and directly competing.

    So it sounds like. "Stop moaning you thick racists, I'm all right, Jack."
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Pulpstar said:

    On the sandwiches:

    http://www.aplitrak.com/?adid=bC5maXR6Z2VyYWxkLjQ4MDQxLjE3NjBAZ3JlZW5jb3JlLmFwbGl0cmFrLmNvbQ

    English job description

    http://www.jobinfo.hu/allas/szendvics-csomagolas-es-keszites-northampton-anglia/nagy-britannia/3328807/wrkn/sponz/?sc=490

    Hungarian.

    The Hungarian description of the jobs does seem a touch more detailed, both webpages were fairly easily found by a google for sandwich making job Northampton.

    Since when has sandwich making been described like this...!

    Assembling raw materials on a production line in a temperature controlled environment
  • Danny565 said:

    Even as a certified bleeding-heart liberal, the argument that immigrants "do jobs that Brits can't do / are unable to do" makes me wince. It wasn't that long ago that firms were expected to pay for young employees to have some training.

    At some point, if we want to avoid "society" disintegrating altogether, we're going to have to ask ourselves whether businesses SHOULD be expected to have some social duties/responsibilities, rather than just being out to line their pockets as much as possible with the cheapest and most "efficient" labour they can find.

    But what about the jobs that Brits 'won't' do?
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''No, a 10p increase in the production cost of a sandwich to pay for higher wages to attract Brits would not drive the operation to imports.''

    Perhaps there is a market for 'Brit trade' products - more expensive sandwiches made by companies that pay higher wages to ex benefits brits.

    They could do some focaccia and brioche ranges for Anti-Frank and co.
  • antifrank said:

    isam said:

    antifrank said:

    antifrank said:


    In a couple of hours, I expect the conclusion will be reached that the sandwiches ought to make themselves.

    Where the anti-immigration people's policy actually leads is that the people get replaced by imported sandwiches or a sandwich-making machine made somewhere with cheaper labour.
    Once you realise that the driving force is xenophobia rather than looking after the interests of the local population, you realise that the anti-immigration people would be entirely comfortable with that outcome.

    Indeed, Nigel Farage has openly acknowledged that he would prefer to see Britain's economy impaired rather than keep current levels of immigration:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10555158/Id-rather-be-poorer-with-fewer-migrants-Farage-says.html
    Using GDP as a smokescreen while enabling the rich get to richer at the expense of the poor who get poorer is no way to run a country, and is why the three parties that endorsed that policy in Government are in freefall
    Nigel Farage said nothing about GDP. He referred to us all being slightly richer, and rejected that:

    “If you said to me, would I like to see over the next ten years a further five million people come in to Britain and if that happened we’d all be slightly richer, I’d say, I’d rather we weren’t slightly richer, and I’d rather we had communities that were united and where young unemployed British people had a realistic chance of getting a job.

    “I think the social side of this matters more than pure market economics.”

    Nigel Farage would rather we were all slightly poorer, to satisfy his inward-looking vision of what Britain should look like.
    Indeed. UKIP wants to make us all poorer. Period.

    Whereas the establishment parties have been making those on low and average earnings poorer for the last decade.

    That the top 10%, and especially the top 1%, have been getting richer is no consolation to the people who have been getting poorer. The opposite in fact.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    Danny565 said:

    Even as a certified bleeding-heart liberal, the argument that immigrants "do jobs that Brits can't do / are unable to do" makes me wince. It wasn't that long ago that firms were expected to pay for young employees to have some training.

    At some point, if we want to avoid "society" disintegrating altogether, we're going to have to ask ourselves whether businesses SHOULD be expected to have some social duties/responsibilities, rather than just being out to line their pockets as much as possible with the cheapest and most "efficient" labour they can find.

    I agree. But the reality is it has to be almost all carrot and hardly any stick, or they just move the whole operation abroad.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited November 2014
    Danny565 said:

    Even as a certified bleeding-heart liberal, the argument that immigrants "do jobs that Brits can't do / are unable to do" makes me wince. It wasn't that long ago that firms were expected to pay for young employees to have some training.

    At some point, if we want to avoid "society" disintegrating altogether, we're going to have to ask ourselves whether businesses SHOULD be expected to have some social duties/responsibilities, rather than just being out to line their pockets as much as possible with the cheapest and most "efficient" labour they can find.

    The shame is that many Labour and Lib Dem loyalists are so tied to their party that they would rather working class lives be ruined than let go of their dogma

    It doesn't help that a party that they are convinced is racist, and that is damaging them in the polls are the ones telling the truth

    Look at Nick Griffin/Rotherham... a bad guy telling the truth, and ignoring him got thousands of girls raped.. but people couldn't wait to be seen disagreeing with him/outraged by his comments. He was even charged for saying it!

    Maybe in 2024 the loyal left will admit the damage economic migration has done, when a professor writes a report on it.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,564



    What was the Labour canvassing effort like?

    I've heard from an impartial and unimpeachable source that it was non exist in Rochester this weekend.

    We had a post from someone last week who'd been involved in it - doubt if he's given up.

  • Mr. Bob, it was engage them, or lose the city.

    And, unlike Athens, Carthage didn't have a host of allies with a stake in defeating their powerful enemy. Carthage falling = war over.

    A Kobayashi Maru? Not sure I fully believe it.

    Can you recommend a good book or series of books. I have dipped in and out of that period but mostly read modern history, my interest has been piqued by the conversations here.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    CD13 said:

    Mr Smithson. antifrank,

    The problem is that the perception, and the perception is that only some people benefit from new, young immigrants. They tend to be... roll of the drums .... the so-called metropolitan and liberal elite.

    And you have to keep importing people to keep up the financial benefit.

    And they tend to mix with educated immigrants, rather than those (who may be educated) doing unskilled work and directly competing.

    So it sounds like. "Stop moaning you thick racists, I'm all right, Jack."

    It sounds like that because that's what it is
  • antifrank said:


    In a couple of hours, I expect the conclusion will be reached that the sandwiches ought to make themselves.

    Where the anti-immigration people's policy actually leads is that the people get replaced by imported sandwiches or a sandwich-making machine made somewhere with cheaper labour.
    You expose the fallacy that we can survive on a few highly paid people creating enough wealth to support the entire country.

    Because the highly paid people will chose to spend their money on cheaper imports or cheaper immigrants or cheaper machines rather than pay more to support a 'living wage' for lower skilled people.

    We need to find ways so that people throughout the economic scale can create wealth.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    Danny565 said:

    Even as a certified bleeding-heart liberal, the argument that immigrants "do jobs that Brits can't do / are unable to do" makes me wince. It wasn't that long ago that firms were expected to pay for young employees to have some training.

    At some point, if we want to avoid "society" disintegrating altogether, we're going to have to ask ourselves whether businesses SHOULD be expected to have some social duties/responsibilities, rather than just being out to line their pockets as much as possible with the cheapest and most "efficient" labour they can find.

    But what about the jobs that Brits 'won't' do?
    They'll do them if you reduce their benefits for knocking jobs like that back
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited November 2014
    Long Term Economic Plan.
    Even in resignation letters Tories write Long Term Economic Plan.

    At what point it becomes ridiculous?
    I bet even if the world was ending the final communications from the Tory party would be Long Term Economic Plan.

    Anyway they are banging about the wrong issue, people don't believe the economic statistics even if they are true when they look at their own wallets to compare.

    As for Tory fantasies they are going to gain Rochester in May, those are on par with winning Rochester in 10 days time.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406
    Indigo said:

    Danny565 said:

    Even as a certified bleeding-heart liberal, the argument that immigrants "do jobs that Brits can't do / are unable to do" makes me wince. It wasn't that long ago that firms were expected to pay for young employees to have some training.

    At some point, if we want to avoid "society" disintegrating altogether, we're going to have to ask ourselves whether businesses SHOULD be expected to have some social duties/responsibilities, rather than just being out to line their pockets as much as possible with the cheapest and most "efficient" labour they can find.

    I agree. But the reality is it has to be almost all carrot and hardly any stick, or they just move the whole operation abroad.
    Would it really be economical to do that for sandwiches ?
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Indigo said:

    Danny565 said:

    Even as a certified bleeding-heart liberal, the argument that immigrants "do jobs that Brits can't do / are unable to do" makes me wince. It wasn't that long ago that firms were expected to pay for young employees to have some training.

    At some point, if we want to avoid "society" disintegrating altogether, we're going to have to ask ourselves whether businesses SHOULD be expected to have some social duties/responsibilities, rather than just being out to line their pockets as much as possible with the cheapest and most "efficient" labour they can find.

    I agree. But the reality is it has to be almost all carrot and hardly any stick, or they just move the whole operation abroad.
    If the whole operation moves abroad because we've priced ourselves out of the low wage activity due to the population being able to get better paid jobs elsewhere, that's a good thing. It's traditionally called "economic development".
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937

    antifrank said:

    isam said:

    antifrank said:

    antifrank said:


    In a couple of hours, I expect the conclusion will be reached that the sandwiches ought to make themselves.

    Where the anti-immigration people's policy actually leads is that the people get replaced by imported sandwiches or a sandwich-making machine made somewhere with cheaper labour.
    Once you realise that the driving force is xenophobia rather than looking after the interests of the local population, you realise that the anti-immigration people would be entirely comfortable with that outcome.

    Indeed, Nigel Farage has openly acknowledged that he would prefer to see Britain's economy impaired rather than keep current levels of immigration:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10555158/Id-rather-be-poorer-with-fewer-migrants-Farage-says.html
    Using GDP as a smokescreen while enabling the rich get to richer at the expense of the poor who get poorer is no way to run a country, and is why the three parties that endorsed that policy in Government are in freefall
    Nigel Farage said nothing about GDP. He referred to us all being slightly richer, and rejected that:

    “If you said to me, would I like to see over the next ten years a further five million people come in to Britain and if that happened we’d all be slightly richer, I’d say, I’d rather we weren’t slightly richer, and I’d rather we had communities that were united and where young unemployed British people had a realistic chance of getting a job.

    “I think the social side of this matters more than pure market economics.”

    Nigel Farage would rather we were all slightly poorer, to satisfy his inward-looking vision of what Britain should look like.
    Indeed. UKIP wants to make us all poorer. Period.

    Whereas the establishment parties have been making those on low and average earnings poorer for the last decade.

    That the top 10%, and especially the top 1%, have been getting richer is no consolation to the people who have been getting poorer. The opposite in fact.

    The top 1% now pay 27.5% of ALL tax in this country. Throughout this Govt., they have paid either 5% or 10% more as a top rate than they did throughout 98% of the term of the last Govt. Meanwhile, several million of the poorest have been taken out of tax altogether.

    This has been one of the great tax redistribution Govts. It may embarrass the Left that Labour clung on to Thatcherite tax rates throughout all but the death throes of their regime, but there it is.
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548

    Ishmael_X said:

    antifrank said:


    In a couple of hours, I expect the conclusion will be reached that the sandwiches ought to make themselves.

    Where the anti-immigration people's policy actually leads is that the people get replaced by imported sandwiches or a sandwich-making machine made somewhere with cheaper labour.
    The Earl of Sandwich has opened a sandwich shop according to the press. Don't know where that leaves your point, but it does mean he can wrong-foot the apostrophe police by putting up a sign saying SANDWICH'S.
    If he opened it in Sandwich, he could call it Sandwich's Sandwich's Sandwiches
    Surely it would have to be Sandwich's Sandwich Sandwiches?
    That works but I don't think there's anything grammatically wrong with having consecutive possessives (eg John's friend's father), and you can certainly use Placename's shop (eg London's Butcher http://www.londonsbutcher.co.uk ), so I'll stick with Sandwich's Sandwich's Sandwiches!
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    hey'll do them if you reduce their benefits for knocking jobs like that back

    LOL. Yeh right. I bet that's not what UKIP are saying on the doorstep in the North of England.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Does anybody want to offer prices on Rochester at the GE? Tories here seem confident they'll win it.

    Money where your mouth is time?
  • antifrank said:

    isam said:

    antifrank said:

    antifrank said:


    In a couple of hours, I expect the conclusion will be reached that the sandwiches ought to make themselves.

    Where the anti-immigration people's policy actually leads is that the people get replaced by imported sandwiches or a sandwich-making machine made somewhere with cheaper labour.
    Once you realise that the driving force is xenophobia rather than looking after the interests of the local population, you realise that the anti-immigration people would be entirely comfortable with that outcome.

    Indeed, Nigel Farage has openly acknowledged that he would prefer to see Britain's economy impaired rather than keep current levels of immigration:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10555158/Id-rather-be-poorer-with-fewer-migrants-Farage-says.html
    Using GDP as a smokescreen while enabling the rich get to richer at the expense of the poor who get poorer is no way to run a country, and is why the three parties that endorsed that policy in Government are in freefall
    Nigel Farage said nothing about GDP. He referred to us all being slightly richer, and rejected that:

    “If you said to me, would I like to see over the next ten years a further five million people come in to Britain and if that happened we’d all be slightly richer, I’d say, I’d rather we weren’t slightly richer, and I’d rather we had communities that were united and where young unemployed British people had a realistic chance of getting a job.

    “I think the social side of this matters more than pure market economics.”

    Nigel Farage would rather we were all slightly poorer, to satisfy his inward-looking vision of what Britain should look like.
    Indeed. UKIP wants to make us all poorer. Period.

    'all poorer' needs definintion. Yes GDP would probably take a hit. GDP/capita might too. But within that there'd be winners and losers as there always are. Farage is progressing on the realisation that in the distribution of winners/losers from immigration the losers may have more votes.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,821
    Danny565 said:

    Even as a certified bleeding-heart liberal, the argument that immigrants "do jobs that Brits won't do / are unable to do" makes me wince. It wasn't that long ago that firms were expected to pay for young employees to have some training.

    At some point, if we want to avoid "society" disintegrating altogether, we're going to have to ask ourselves whether businesses SHOULD be expected to have some social duties/responsibilities, rather than just being out to line their pockets as much as possible with the cheapest and most "efficient" labour they can find.

    The counter argument being why should businesses (and can we afford them to even if they should) pay for less motivated and less capable employees, amongst all the other burdens inherent in doing business in the UK? Left wing education policies have wrecked our education system, as rigour has been removed and the bar has been set lower and lower at each successive educational stage. The workplace is the last stage that the left wing can't fix to hide the uselessness of their progeny. What is really needed is radical change in education.

  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    Danny565 said:

    Even as a certified bleeding-heart liberal, the argument that immigrants "do jobs that Brits can't do / are unable to do" makes me wince. It wasn't that long ago that firms were expected to pay for young employees to have some training.

    At some point, if we want to avoid "society" disintegrating altogether, we're going to have to ask ourselves whether businesses SHOULD be expected to have some social duties/responsibilities, rather than just being out to line their pockets as much as possible with the cheapest and most "efficient" labour they can find.

    But what about the jobs that Brits 'won't' do?
    Workfare. There shouldn't be any able-bodied person sitting on the sofa collecting money from someone else's pocket. I don't mind paying to support people that have hit on hard times and cant get a job at the moment, I do mind it a) it becoming a lifestyle and b) involving no effort from the claimant, if I am working to earn their money, they should too.
  • Mr. Bob, I can very strongly recommend the military histories/biographies by Theodore Ayrault Dodge of Alexander, Hannibal and Caesar, but be very wary when buying them as it seems abridged versions (which are *not* marked as abridged) have come onto the market. They're pretty hefty, around 700 pages for the first two and more for Caesar.

    If you're considering buying one, I've got them and would be happy to confirm how many pages it should have (it looks like an identical [including typeface] version as the original release so the page number, I think, should remain consistent. Otherwise the maps and diagrams, of which there are many, may be missing).

    For primary sources, Polybius and Livy are what you should go for. There's Appian too, apparently, but I've yet to read that. Polybius is more accurate but his account ends just after Cannae.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    taffys said:

    hey'll do them if you reduce their benefits for knocking jobs like that back

    LOL. Yeh right. I bet that's not what UKIP are saying on the doorstep in the North of England.

    Wouldn't know

    But maybe they should.

    "We will stop economic migrants undercutting British wages, but if you refuse to take an unskilled job, we'll stop your dole"

    Who can complain?
  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    edited November 2014
    The fundamental principles of supply and demand.
    The Labour party rightly point out that if the supply of houses was significantly higher than current new build levels, then it would suppress the purchase price of houses.
    But, when it comes to the supply of labour, the Labour folk do not agree that an increase in the supply of labour (from the EC) will suppress the wage price of jobs.
    Under Labour we increased the supply of labour by 2 million and the demand for housing, but the supply of new houses fell.
    So we ended up with low/nil wage growth and more expensive houses.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091




    The top 1% now pay 27.5% of ALL tax in this country.

    Don't the top 1% possess even more wealth than that? Why should we be grateful to them for paying that tax, when they've only earnt as much money as they have in the first place on the backs of the rest of us?
  • On Rochester, I don't think anyone's posted this:
    Conservative MPs who were sent to campaign in a crucial by-election have ended up licking envelopes in a back office after voters complained of too much “love-bombing” from the party.
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4262776.ece

    No idea of the veracity or otherwise and I only saw the beginning because of the paywall, but it seems a bit weird.
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    Pulpstar said:

    On the sandwiches:

    http://www.aplitrak.com/?adid=bC5maXR6Z2VyYWxkLjQ4MDQxLjE3NjBAZ3JlZW5jb3JlLmFwbGl0cmFrLmNvbQ

    English job description

    http://www.jobinfo.hu/allas/szendvics-csomagolas-es-keszites-northampton-anglia/nagy-britannia/3328807/wrkn/sponz/?sc=490

    Hungarian.

    The Hungarian description of the jobs does seem a touch more detailed, both webpages were fairly easily found by a google for sandwich making job Northampton.

    So antifrank gets cheap sandwiches from the Hungarians here, and prices them out of their own property market there. Exploiting the poor in a way which would make a Victorian mill owner blush, and diagnosing xenophobia in anyone who dares to object.

  • TCPB

    Please don't talk about simple supply and demand economics with Labour - you'll confuse them.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    isam said:

    taffys said:

    hey'll do them if you reduce their benefits for knocking jobs like that back

    LOL. Yeh right. I bet that's not what UKIP are saying on the doorstep in the North of England.

    Wouldn't know

    But maybe they should.

    "We will stop economic migrants undercutting British wages, but if you refuse to take an unskilled job, we'll stop your dole"

    Who can complain?
    Kippers are keen for those not in work to get their spare room back - no amount of welfare is too good for the indigenous population apparently.
  • The fundamental principles of supply and demand.
    The Labour party rightly point out that if the supply of houses was significantly higher than current new build levels, then it would suppress the purchase price of houses.
    But, when it comes to the supply of labour, the Labour folk do not agree that an increase in the supply of labour (from the EC) will suppress the wage price of jobs.
    Under Labour we increased the supply of labour by 2 million and the demand for housing, but the supply of new houses fell.
    So we ended up with low/nil wage growth and more expensive houses.

    There's something in that but the analogy doesn't quite work: People are different to houses because they create jobs as well as filling them.

  • Whereas the establishment parties have been making those on low and average earnings poorer for the last decade.

    That the top 10%, and especially the top 1%, have been getting richer is no consolation to the people who have been getting poorer. The opposite in fact.


    The top 1% now pay 27.5% of ALL tax in this country. Throughout this Govt., they have paid either 5% or 10% more as a top rate than they did throughout 98% of the term of the last Govt. Meanwhile, several million of the poorest have been taken out of tax altogether.

    This has been one of the great tax redistribution Govts. It may embarrass the Left that Labour clung on to Thatcherite tax rates throughout all but the death throes of their regime, but there it is.
    Have you ever wondered why the top 1% pay so much tax ?

    Its because they have so much of the income and so much of the wealth.

    Now how many of that top 1% have genuinely earned all that income and genuinely created all that wealth ?

    What you are boasting about is the UK becoming more unequal with an ever greater divide between the top 1% and everyone else.

    Afternoon all.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    Paul Waugh ‏@paulwaugh 6s6 seconds ago
    Balls tells @Marthakearney he was 'the first person' to come out to defend EdM last week: 'don't play silly, petty politics'
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    On Rochester, I don't think anyone's posted this:

    Conservative MPs who were sent to campaign in a crucial by-election have ended up licking envelopes in a back office after voters complained of too much “love-bombing” from the party.
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4262776.ece

    No idea of the veracity or otherwise and I only saw the beginning because of the paywall, but it seems a bit weird.

    That sounds ominous, like the sort of response they would get heavy canvassing in Bootle or Knowsley, although possibly more polite ;-)
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    TGOHF said:

    antifrank said:

    I love the pb threads with discussions about lower paid jobs in Britain. The pb commentariat don't like the fact that immigrants are willing to do the jobs and that the locals are not, they don't like the fact that these jobs don't pay well enough to provide local unskilled workers with a middle class standard of living and they don't like the price of the produce going up to pay for higher wages for workers.

    In a couple of hours, I expect the conclusion will be reached that the sandwiches ought to make themselves.

    You will come to the conclusion that Ukip are far far to the left of Labour - and you will be correct.

    They want the state to control everything down to who gets hired for jobs.
    So they are in fact Nationalist Socialists?
    Nah - not National - they can only win MPs where the incumbent defects.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Patrick said:

    antifrank said:

    isam said:

    antifrank said:

    antifrank said:


    In a couple of hours, I expect the conclusion will be reached that the sandwiches ought to make themselves.

    Where the anti-immigration people's policy actually leads is that the people get replaced by imported sandwiches or a sandwich-making machine made somewhere with cheaper labour.
    Once you realise that the driving force is xenophobia rather than looking after the interests of the local population, you realise that the anti-immigration people would be entirely comfortable with that outcome.

    Indeed, Nigel Farage has openly acknowledged that he would prefer to see Britain's economy impaired rather than keep current levels of immigration:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10555158/Id-rather-be-poorer-with-fewer-migrants-Farage-says.html
    Using GDP as a smokescreen while enabling the rich get to richer at the expense of the poor who get poorer is no way to run a country, and is why the three parties that endorsed that policy in Government are in freefall
    Nigel Farage said nothing about GDP. He referred to us all being slightly richer, and rejected that:

    “If you said to me, would I like to see over the next ten years a further five million people come in to Britain and if that happened we’d all be slightly richer, I’d say, I’d rather we weren’t slightly richer, and I’d rather we had communities that were united and where young unemployed British people had a realistic chance of getting a job.

    “I think the social side of this matters more than pure market economics.”

    Nigel Farage would rather we were all slightly poorer, to satisfy his inward-looking vision of what Britain should look like.
    Indeed. UKIP wants to make us all poorer. Period.

    'all poorer' needs definintion. Yes GDP would probably take a hit. GDP/capita might too. But within that there'd be winners and losers as there always are. Farage is progressing on the realisation that in the distribution of winners/losers from immigration the losers may have more votes.
    Its quite unreal that Lib Dem and Labour posters defend policies that treat people/families lives as no more than units in a free market economy
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937
    Danny565 said:




    The top 1% now pay 27.5% of ALL tax in this country.

    Don't the top 1% possess even more wealth than that? Why should we be grateful to them for paying that tax, when they've only earnt as much money as they have in the first place on the backs of the rest of us?
    I see you are conflating capital and income. Why should they have wealth? Let's take it off them! The cry of the Left for a hundred or more years.

    Let's eat the pie now, rather than make a bigger pie for all to eat from in the future!

    No.



  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    Britain Elects ‏@britainelects 1m1 minute ago
    National Opinion Poll (Populus):
    LAB - 36% (+1)
    CON - 34% (+1)
    UKIP - 13% (-1)
    LDEM - 8% (-1)
    GRN - 4% (-)
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,366

    The problem is that the Labour party has gradually morphed into a middle class, liberal, elite with no concept of any other viewpoint.

    Justice consists of political correctness, and they complain that some elements of their support (Mrs Duffy) are still stuck in the dark ages. Yes, the Tories eat babies, so they are morally superior, but they are just another version of the animal farm pigs. Blair (Eric) had it right.

    Some Northern MPs see the danger but they are voices outside the throne room.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937


    Whereas the establishment parties have been making those on low and average earnings poorer for the last decade.

    That the top 10%, and especially the top 1%, have been getting richer is no consolation to the people who have been getting poorer. The opposite in fact.


    The top 1% now pay 27.5% of ALL tax in this country. Throughout this Govt., they have paid either 5% or 10% more as a top rate than they did throughout 98% of the term of the last Govt. Meanwhile, several million of the poorest have been taken out of tax altogether.

    This has been one of the great tax redistribution Govts. It may embarrass the Left that Labour clung on to Thatcherite tax rates throughout all but the death throes of their regime, but there it is.
    Have you ever wondered why the top 1% pay so much tax ?

    Its because they have so much of the income and so much of the wealth.

    Now how many of that top 1% have genuinely earned all that income and genuinely created all that wealth ?

    What you are boasting about is the UK becoming more unequal with an ever greater divide between the top 1% and everyone else.

    Afternoon all.
    That 1% pays for the NHS.

    Drive them away by all means, but be honest with the voters. It will mean homeopathy for all - or crippling taxes on everyone else.

    I would rather have 100,000 more very wealthy individuals coming to this country and paying a heap more tax to the Chancellor. I suspect you would not.

  • Mr. Bob, I can very strongly recommend the military histories/biographies by Theodore Ayrault Dodge of Alexander, Hannibal and Caesar, but be very wary when buying them as it seems abridged versions (which are *not* marked as abridged) have come onto the market. They're pretty hefty, around 700 pages for the first two and more for Caesar.

    If you're considering buying one, I've got them and would be happy to confirm how many pages it should have (it looks like an identical [including typeface] version as the original release so the page number, I think, should remain consistent. Otherwise the maps and diagrams, of which there are many, may be missing).

    For primary sources, Polybius and Livy are what you should go for. There's Appian too, apparently, but I've yet to read that. Polybius is more accurate but his account ends just after Cannae.

    Thanks. Found a copy of Livy, Rome and Italy on the bookshelf, a little dusty and bookmarked at page 148. I think I'll start it again. I'll have a look on Amazon for the others, and the rest of Livy as Rome and Italy I now see is only books VI-X, who knew?
  • NinoinozNinoinoz Posts: 1,312

    On Rochester, I don't think anyone's posted this:

    Conservative MPs who were sent to campaign in a crucial by-election have ended up licking envelopes in a back office after voters complained of too much “love-bombing” from the party.
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4262776.ece

    No idea of the veracity or otherwise and I only saw the beginning because of the paywall, but it seems a bit weird.
    Perhaps at Dirty Dicks PBers would like to surround a "civilian" and discuss politics ad infinitum and see her reaction?

    Run for the hills, I'll bet.
  • KentRisingKentRising Posts: 2,917
    edited November 2014
    isam, which is why there is a huge gap on the left for UKIP. The irony is that a party set up 20 years ago by an LSE professor focused soley on removing the UK from the EU, and which has traditonally attracted former Tories (and is led by one now), is harnessing traditional Old Labour support because it is the only one of the biggest four parties that doesn't see the free market as the be all and end all.
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    TGOHF said:

    isam said:

    taffys said:

    hey'll do them if you reduce their benefits for knocking jobs like that back

    LOL. Yeh right. I bet that's not what UKIP are saying on the doorstep in the North of England.

    Wouldn't know

    But maybe they should.

    "We will stop economic migrants undercutting British wages, but if you refuse to take an unskilled job, we'll stop your dole"

    Who can complain?
    Kippers are keen for those not in work to get their spare room back - no amount of welfare is too good for the indigenous population apparently.
    It's an anything to win votes policy.

    UKIP are following an 'all things to all people' strategy to pick up the disaffected - just like the LibDems used to do.
  • antifrank said:

    isam said:

    antifrank said:

    antifrank said:


    In a couple of hours, I expect the conclusion will be reached that the sandwiches ought to make themselves.

    Where the anti-immigration people's policy actually leads is that the people get replaced by imported sandwiches or a sandwich-making machine made somewhere with cheaper labour.
    Once you realise that the driving force is xenophobia rather than looking after the interests of the local population, you realise that the anti-immigration people would be entirely comfortable with that outcome.

    Indeed, Nigel Farage has openly acknowledged that he would prefer to see Britain's economy impaired rather than keep current levels of immigration:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10555158/Id-rather-be-poorer-with-fewer-migrants-Farage-says.html
    Using GDP as a smokescreen while enabling the rich get to richer at the expense of the poor who get poorer is no way to run a country, and is why the three parties that endorsed that policy in Government are in freefall
    Nigel Farage said nothing about GDP. He referred to us all being slightly richer, and rejected that:

    “If you said to me, would I like to see over the next ten years a further five million people come in to Britain and if that happened we’d all be slightly richer, I’d say, I’d rather we weren’t slightly richer, and I’d rather we had communities that were united and where young unemployed British people had a realistic chance of getting a job.

    “I think the social side of this matters more than pure market economics.”

    Nigel Farage would rather we were all slightly poorer, to satisfy his inward-looking vision of what Britain should look like.
    Indeed. UKIP wants to make us all poorer. Period.

    Are you saying you want to get a bit richer at the expense of wrecking our communities even further?

    What a nice view to hold.
  • Mr. Bob, I think that's the same as mine. Livy's work on the Second Punic War is 10 books, I think.

    His Early History of Rome is rather enjoyable
  • isam said:

    Swiss_Bob said:

    Swiss_Bob said:

    This has piqued my interest - Micheal White on next Labour leader (who he says will not replace Ed before 2015):


    "Who will that be? I don’t know, but I have one or two names that the pundits never mention. I’m keeping them a secret."

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2014/nov/10/ed-miliband-plot-labour-leadership-conservative-party

    Who could he mean? Stella?

    Alistair Darling!

    I have got money on him at 50-1 :-)
    Me too. But he is standing down as an MP, so I think we need a re-think. I'm not interested in favourites, looking for value.
    50-1 isn't value?

    I don't know whether you saw the reasoning I gave yesterday.

    1. He would get most of the Scottish vote out.
    2. Voters consider him to be economically sound.
    3. He's a 'big beast'.
    4. Who would want to be in the Labour party run by Ed? So no issue about him standing down as he'd be back like a shot if he thought he would be PM.
    5. 1-4 make him the next PM.
    I thought he was stepping down?

    Jon Cruddas is the man who might win back the old WWC.. if Stella Creasy was in charge I think Labour would cease to exist, maybe they'd merge with respect?
    There's an amusing Parliamentary Briefing Paper on membership of UK political parties that states that "...in 2013 Respect disclosed that it membership had fallen to 200 members." I don't think it's even that big even if viewed solely in terms of being a personality cult. There's nothing to merge with.

    The latest Left of Labour project was supposed to be Left Unity. Apparently they're having a national conference next weekend. It claims a membership of ~2,000, which probably makes it the seventh largest British-wide political party by membership, but its election results to date have been unimpressive, even by the low standards of the British Left.

    Wikipedia notes that:
    "In local elections on 22 May 2014, Left Unity stood 11 candidates ... received 1,038 votes ... In one notable case, Wigan West, Left Unity candidate Hazel Duffy garnered 8.8%, surpassing the Conservatives..."
    I don't think they've decided whether they are standing candidates at the next GE yet, or whether otherwise to join in a coalition with the pre-existing SPGB/SWP/RMT "Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition".


  • What was the Labour canvassing effort like?

    I've heard from an impartial and unimpeachable source that it was non exist in Rochester this weekend.

    We had a post from someone last week who'd been involved in it - doubt if he's given up.

    Couldn't really say to be honest.I was canvassing in a Conservative area in Chatham and didn't see any Labour effort there but wouldn't really have expected them to be concentrating there anyway.As I have said previously, Labour do not seem to be financially resourced for this by- election.Their leaflets are poor quality ,produced on poor ,cheap, paper and seem to get ripped up as they go through the letter box which leaves a bad impression.Little things like that are v important .One voter told us she was going to vote UKIP because the personalised letter to her from Kelly Tolhurst contained lots of spelling errors.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    edited November 2014
    Indigo said:


    Edit to add: Also a demographic crisis which politicians try to solve by ineffectually urging women to have more babies, and the fiscal shadow of the demographic crisis, a national debt and pension liability that nobody can even begin to imagine how to pay off.

    Doesn't using immigrant workers to solve demographic issues amount to a Ponzi scheme. They will in turn get old and need a pension and then the only way you can pay those pensions is to bring in more people to work.

    If you can defer a demographic problem for 40 years it may solve itself in the interim (sometimes we worry about under-population, sometimes over-population) or robots may make it moot, so even if it is a ponzi scheme there's a lot to be said for keeping it going for another couple of generations rather than letting everybody's pension schemes collapse right away.

    Also if letting young immigrants in amounts to a ponzi scheme then so does having babies - I suppose all care for elderly people is kind-of a ponzi scheme in that every generation needs to keep having children to care for itself, then those children have to have more children. But at that point it seems like we're stretching the "ponzi" term a bit too much...

    PS. The framing about "importing" workers is misleading, and slightly creepy. What we're actually talking about is relaxing restrictions that prevent people from coming and going as they please. In a lot of cases this allows natural processes of human incentives and supply and demand to solve problems without the government needing to think too hard about them, which is better because when the government does try to micro-manage it tends to bollocks it up.
  • Just seen Ben Bradshaw on the Daily Politics pretending that the EU has kept peace in Europe.

    I suppose some mugs believe it.
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    edited November 2014
    Oh dear dear me. Even after 4 years Chuka just said in interview they were going to get Davi....... Cough splutter
    Ed miliband into No 10.

    Its enough to make you weep (if you were a Labour supporter of course)


    Fnar. Fnar
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    TGOHF said:

    isam said:

    taffys said:

    hey'll do them if you reduce their benefits for knocking jobs like that back

    LOL. Yeh right. I bet that's not what UKIP are saying on the doorstep in the North of England.

    Wouldn't know

    But maybe they should.

    "We will stop economic migrants undercutting British wages, but if you refuse to take an unskilled job, we'll stop your dole"

    Who can complain?
    Kippers are keen for those not in work to get their spare room back - no amount of welfare is too good for the indigenous population apparently.
    It's an anything to win votes policy.

    UKIP are following an 'all things to all people' strategy to pick up the disaffected - just like the LibDems used to do.
    The glaring omission is of course a referendum on Europe..
  • NinoinozNinoinoz Posts: 1,312
    Indigo said:


    Edit to add: Also a demographic crisis which politicians try to solve by ineffectually urging women to have more babies, and the fiscal shadow of the demographic crisis, a national debt and pension liability that nobody can even begin to imagine how to pay off.

    Doesn't using immigrant workers to solve demographic issues amount to a Ponzi scheme. They will in turn get old and need a pension and then the only way you can pay those pensions is to bring in more people to work.

    Pointed out by the economist Paul Samuelson in 1968, I believe. Before widespread family planning had been introduced.
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548

    One voter told us she was going to vote UKIP because the personalised letter to her from Kelly Tolhurst contained lots of spelling errors.

    I don't think that would make me vote UKIP, but it would definitely put me off voting for Tolhurst.
  • antifrank said:

    isam said:

    antifrank said:

    antifrank said:


    In a couple of hours, I expect the conclusion will be reached that the sandwiches ought to make themselves.

    Where the anti-immigration people's policy actually leads is that the people get replaced by imported sandwiches or a sandwich-making machine made somewhere with cheaper labour.
    Once you realise that the driving force is xenophobia rather than looking after the interests of the local population, you realise that the anti-immigration people would be entirely comfortable with that outcome.

    Indeed, Nigel Farage has openly acknowledged that he would prefer to see Britain's economy impaired rather than keep current levels of immigration:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10555158/Id-rather-be-poorer-with-fewer-migrants-Farage-says.html
    Using GDP as a smokescreen while enabling the rich get to richer at the expense of the poor who get poorer is no way to run a country, and is why the three parties that endorsed that policy in Government are in freefall
    Nigel Farage said nothing about GDP. He referred to us all being slightly richer, and rejected that:

    “If you said to me, would I like to see over the next ten years a further five million people come in to Britain and if that happened we’d all be slightly richer, I’d say, I’d rather we weren’t slightly richer, and I’d rather we had communities that were united and where young unemployed British people had a realistic chance of getting a job.

    “I think the social side of this matters more than pure market economics.”

    Nigel Farage would rather we were all slightly poorer, to satisfy his inward-looking vision of what Britain should look like.
    As Bobby Kennedy said , GDP measures everything, except that which makes life worthwhile.
    Given that having your sandwiches made by somebody else is an unexceptional item of GDP and that prostitution has recently been added, it surely can't be long until some highly-paid executive convinces his wife to charge him for personal services in order to make use of her personal tax allowance. Throw in a bit more for "life coaching" or "personal entertainment" and you could pretty much cover everything in life as a financial transaction - to be counted in the national accounts.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    isam, which is why there is a huge gap on the left for UKIP. The irony is that a party set up 20 years ago by an LSE professor focused soley on removing the UK from the EU, and which has traditonally attracted former Tories (and is led by one now), is harnessing traditional Old Labour support because it is the only one of the biggest four parties that doesn't see the free market as the be all and end all.

    Indeed. and the flip side of that is that we now have Lib Dems and Labourites justifying misery for the poorest in society by citing free market economics
  • One voter told us she was going to vote UKIP because the personalised letter to her from Kelly Tolhurst contained lots of spelling errors.

    I don't think that would make me vote UKIP, but it would definitely put me off voting for Tolhurst.
    Well you take every vote you can get for whatever reason don't you.
  • NinoinozNinoinoz Posts: 1,312



    What was the Labour canvassing effort like?

    I've heard from an impartial and unimpeachable source that it was non exist in Rochester this weekend.

    We had a post from someone last week who'd been involved in it - doubt if he's given up.

    One voter told us she was going to vote UKIP because the personalised letter to her from Kelly Tolhurst contained lots of spelling errors.
    Yes, perhaps it's totally unfair, but correct grammar and spelling matter. Perhaps spending my childhood as an amanuensis to my ethnic community has drilled that into me.
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    Swiss_Bob said:

    Just seen Ben Bradshaw on the Daily Politics pretending that the EU has kept peace in Europe.

    I suppose some mugs believe it.

    Not as many as idiots like you who deny it .
  • Mr. Bob, worked well in Bosnia and Ukraine.
  • KentRisingKentRising Posts: 2,917
    edited November 2014
    BBC South East reporting Reckless has agreed to retract leaflets which show him meeting the head of a local hospital after the trust claimed it would mislead people into thinking UKIP had NHS backing.

    They showed a clip from the Rochester debate, being televised tonight. The Labour candidate took Reckless to task for an old UKIP leaflet which claimed 29 million people from Romania and Bulgaria would be free to move to the UK ("when in fact the population of those countries is 27 million").

    She got a few laughs, but she won't get many votes.

    Tolhurst issued the same old Tory point about 'the best way to get a referendum is to vote Tory'. Reckless reponded with composure that he does not trust his former leader or party to deliver on the issue.

    The Lib Dem candidate made some idiotic point about if the UK withdrew from Europe the English living in Spain would have to sell up and move back, and '"how would we cope?"


  • Ninoinoz said:



    What was the Labour canvassing effort like?

    I've heard from an impartial and unimpeachable source that it was non exist in Rochester this weekend.

    We had a post from someone last week who'd been involved in it - doubt if he's given up.

    One voter told us she was going to vote UKIP because the personalised letter to her from Kelly Tolhurst contained lots of spelling errors.
    Yes, perhaps it's totally unfair, but correct grammar and spelling matter. Perhaps spending my childhood as an amanuensis to my ethnic community has drilled that into me.
    Well you'll be telling this chap off,

    It should be fewer, not less?

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B2FXRQzIMAAfzEr.jpg
  • Ninoinoz said:



    What was the Labour canvassing effort like?

    I've heard from an impartial and unimpeachable source that it was non exist in Rochester this weekend.

    We had a post from someone last week who'd been involved in it - doubt if he's given up.

    One voter told us she was going to vote UKIP because the personalised letter to her from Kelly Tolhurst contained lots of spelling errors.
    Yes, perhaps it's totally unfair, but correct grammar and spelling matter. Perhaps spending my childhood as an amanuensis to my ethnic community has drilled that into me.
    Well you'll be telling this chap off,

    It should be fewer, not less?

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B2FXRQzIMAAfzEr.jpg
    Where we're going we don't need 'roads'.
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @kentRising

    'is harnessing traditional Old Labour support because it is the only one of the biggest four parties that doesn't see the free market as the be all and end all.'

    Seriously, apart from leaving the EU and immigration,does anyone have a clue what UKIP policies are?
  • Someone linked on the last thread that there are 'secret' plans to further slash law & order and defence next year?

    I've written to my MP about this. If it's true, I won't be voting Conservative next year.
  • KentRisingKentRising Posts: 2,917
    john_zims said:

    @kentRising

    'is harnessing traditional Old Labour support because it is the only one of the biggest four parties that doesn't see the free market as the be all and end all.'

    Seriously, apart from leaving the EU and immigration,does anyone have a clue what UKIP policies are?

    Not really. Pro grammar school, I think, which will go down well here in West Kent.

    And, oh look, the Tories are making noises about the issue. Is there an election coming?
    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/533123/David-Cameron-lift-ban-grammar-schools-Tory-MPs
This discussion has been closed.