Oh and it's a long term plan......presumably to differentiate it from any short term wheeze Labour comes up with....
I think it's a 'long term' plan, to excuse the awkward fact that after 5 years of coalition government, the UK has the largest budget deficit in the EU.
Rising real wages and creation of decent jobs - rather than forcing people into burger flipping ones - are the only things that matter.
Far too late for the Tories to turn that around now.
Tell me, how does the government create decent jobs ? Ones that make money for the country I mean ?
It doesn't cut spending.
Hate to break it to you, government jobs dont make money, they cost money. Private sector jobs make money, there's more of those been created in the UK than the rest of the EU put together.
Ah. I see you've been reading the Ladybird picture book "Rightwing Economics 101".
Private Sector Jobs have no greater value than any other job, as the UKs woeful productivity figures and dismal tax receipts make abundantly clear.
If zillions of burger flippers are so valuable to the economy - more so than, say, social workers - why is the deficit rising on the back of an undershoot in income tax receipts?
If you the government have £10, and give me a fiver to cut your lawn, then I give you back £2 in tax, do you have more money or less money?
That's just wrong.
If the government pays for people to do stuff, it gets all the money back in tax, less savings.
Wow - you are Ed Miliband. I worked in the public sector for 34 years and I never knew all my wages every month went back to the govt.
It doesn't. But your spending is someone else's income that gets taxed.
This isn't that difficult to comprehend.
But the Right's failure to do so shows why they stuff up the economy time and time again.
Endnote on your Ed Miliband snark - he's an MSc in economics. Which means he has a higher academic qualification in the subject than Cameron and the useless Osborne.
Lol we all know about his intellectual self-confidence. Sixth Form rules!
I can see Ed being elected. And like Gordon, that will be mission accomplished.
With no real policies apart from spending, there will be economic problems, and his response will be the Animal Farm one.
Gordon blamed America, Ed will blame his own Farmer Jones - the financial markets or the Gnomes of Zurich, those rich bankers who he hasn't , unlike Blair, bothered to ingratiate himself with.
With a crisis looming, he will go to the country with a choice. Either choose me, fair Ed, the man on your side, or those shadowy lizard people who lurk at the bottom of your garden.
Obviously, he'll wrap it up in gobbledy-gook, but his acolytes will simplify the message a little.
As private Fraser says ... "We're doomed, I tell ye, doomed."
It should be Politics 101, but if you give the impression that you like and respect a particular group of voters, a lot of them will support you, even if they don't think you'll do very much for them. If you don't the reverse will be true.
If anyone knows of someone wanting to rent a flat in the Upminster area, 2 mins from tube/train, 20/25 mins from Docklands/City, 5 mins from M25 pls get in touch
So clearly the answer should be to refuse such entitlements to incomers until they have lived in the country for some statutory period – say two years – and have established some sort of permanent residency. What could be more reasonable? Except that under present EU law, such a solution is illegal. Under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty (and now the UK Equalities Act of 2010) all EU citizens must be treated the same as native-born citizens in any member country. That is the real force of the "freedom of movement of labour" principle. If a UK citizen has an immediate right to all in-work benefits and to treatment free at the point of use by the NHS, then so must any EU citizen who resides here. Anything else is unlawful discrimination.
Which seems a bit scarey to me, and extends Freedom of Movement way more than it at first appears.
They would need British, Irish, or Commonwealtb citizenship to vote in UK elections.
The article demonstrates one of the most pernicious parts of modern equality/human rights laws, namely that governments must not differentiate between their own citizens and foreign nationals.
Working through that lot... it seems particularly good for Irish citizens here as they enjoy both their commonwealth and EU rights.
I can see Ed being elected. And like Gordon, that will be mission accomplished.
With no real policies apart from spending, there will be economic problems, and his response will be the Animal Farm one.
Gordon blamed America, Ed will blame his own Farmer Jones - the financial markets or the Gnomes of Zurich, those rich bankers who he hasn't , unlike Blair, bothered to ingratiate himself with.
With a crisis looming, he will go to the country with a choice. Either choose me, fair Ed, the man on your side, or those shadowy lizard people who lurk at the bottom of your garden.
Obviously, he'll wrap it up in gobbledy-gook, but his acolytes will simplify the message a little.
As private Fraser says ... "We're doomed, I tell ye, doomed."
The economics world has several cycles : the longer one being 90 years.. The shorter being 4 years odd and then 9-10years.
2019 is the 90th anniversary of the 1929 crash. 2018 is the 10th anniversary of the 2008 crash. 2018 is the 4th anniversary of the 2014 correction of the Bull Market following th2 2008 crash.
I would not want to hold any stocks after mid 2018.
BenM you really should be quiet when the economy is the issue. Your lot emptied the bank when there was a surplus of cash going in and maxed out on the credit account too.
Clearly because Ed Bland has an MSc he knows where the magic money trees grow!
I can see Ed being elected. And like Gordon, that will be mission accomplished.
With no real policies apart from spending, there will be economic problems, and his response will be the Animal Farm one.
Gordon blamed America, Ed will blame his own Farmer Jones - the financial markets or the Gnomes of Zurich, those rich bankers who he hasn't , unlike Blair, bothered to ingratiate himself with.
With a crisis looming, he will go to the country with a choice. Either choose me, fair Ed, the man on your side, or those shadowy lizard people who lurk at the bottom of your garden.
Obviously, he'll wrap it up in gobbledy-gook, but his acolytes will simplify the message a little.
As private Fraser says ... "We're doomed, I tell ye, doomed."
I would not want to hold any stocks after mid 2018.
Equity markets are looking very toppy - but they can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. They may yet climb for another year or more before they inevitably crash. Calling the top correctly is a fool's game. But once the crash happens (say 30%+ fall from peak) then is the time to pile back into equities. If the crash comes before 2018 then 2018 might be a very good year to go long on the FTSE!
Growth up q/q 0.7% unrevised. But the detail shows investment falling and the trade deficit widening again.
Whomsoever takes over from this chump has got an almost impossible task wrestling the economy away from Tory fantasy back to some sort of reality.
Trade deficit - so he needs to fix the Eurozone economy so they will buy more of our stuff ?
Trade deficit is as much, if not more so, an import problem as an export one. Our recovery is coming from consumption. We can't sustain that. We import energy. We import the tat we buy in shops. We import food. Maybe the pound is too strong? Eventually we'll run out of assets to sell foreigners (companies, London houses,etc) and then Sterling will get it in the neck.
Ozzy is doing a good job buying us borrowed time to sort out deeper more fundamental economic malaises (productivity, deficit, competitiveness) whilst simultaneously failing to address those deeper issues.
@DavidL - "In reality the very well paid of 2007, such as bankers and financial investors, are doing much worse than they were then and have borne more than their share of the pain."
Really? Property prices have soared, quantitative easing has provided all kinds of opportunities, the markets have generally been moving northwards, the cost of borrowing is lower than it has ever been before, dividend taxes have been cut. There's never been a better time to be very wealthy.
Property prices have only soared in some very specific parts of London - my own former property in SE London is currently values at £260000 - I sold it in 2008 for £250000 and a year before that it was valued at £300000. My mother's house in the north-east is valued £10,000 less than when she died 4 years ago.
Bankers and investors do tend to live in very specific parts of London.
Growth up q/q 0.7% unrevised. But the detail shows investment falling and the trade deficit widening again.
Whomsoever takes over from this chump has got an almost impossible task wrestling the economy away from Tory fantasy back to some sort of reality.
Trade deficit - so he needs to fix the Eurozone economy so they will buy more of our stuff ?
Trade deficit is as much, if not more so, an import problem as an export one. Our recovery is coming from consumption. We can't sustain that. We import energy. We import the tat we buy in shops. We import food. Maybe the pound is too strong? Eventually we'll run out of assets to sell foreigners (companies, London houses,etc) and then Sterling will get it in the neck.
Ozzy is doing a good job buying us borrowed time to sort out deeper more fundamental economic malaises (productivity, deficit, competitiveness) whilst simultaneously failing to address those deeper issues.
Yup he's buying the time and then promptly idling it away.
Growth up q/q 0.7% unrevised. But the detail shows investment falling and the trade deficit widening again.
Whomsoever takes over from this chump has got an almost impossible task wrestling the economy away from Tory fantasy back to some sort of reality.
Trade deficit - so he needs to fix the Eurozone economy so they will buy more of our stuff ?
Trade deficit is as much, if not more so, an import problem as an export one. Our recovery is coming from consumption. We can't sustain that. We import energy. We import the tat we buy in shops. We import food. Maybe the pound is too strong? Eventually we'll run out of assets to sell foreigners (companies, London houses,etc) and then Sterling will get it in the neck.
Ozzy is doing a good job buying us borrowed time to sort out deeper more fundamental economic malaises (productivity, deficit, competitiveness) whilst simultaneously failing to address those deeper issues.
Yup he's buying the time and then promptly idling it away.
He really needs to go.
'We all know what to do - we just don't know how to get re-elected'.
I believe Ozzy would be doing the right stuff if he had a blank sheet, but he doesn't. It's a coalition and the electorate aren't ready for their medicine. The alternative is Ed n Ed - say no more. (Shudders)
It should be Politics 101, but if you give the impression that you like and respect a particular group of voters, a lot of them will support you, even if they don't think you'll do very much for them. If you don't the reverse will be true.
Spot on.
Labour give me the impression that they view people like me - those who have worked all their life, pay all their taxes, without using clever wheezes, live in their homes for decades rather than indulge in property speculation, value education for their children, save as much as they can etc - as mugs whose only value is that our wallets can easily be picked.
I may not expect Labour to do much for me because there are poorer people than me who should be the priority but I feel strongly that Labour simply neither like nor respect people like me and that some Labour people view people like me with a certain contempt.
It is one - important - reason why I cannot bring myself to vote for the current Labour party even though in the past I have and despite the fact that I admire some past and present Labour politicians. I just don't think that Labour values the largely silent getting on with life/ trying to do the right thing classes, whether they're working/middle or upper class.
Growth up q/q 0.7% unrevised. But the detail shows investment falling and the trade deficit widening again.
Whomsoever takes over from this chump has got an almost impossible task wrestling the economy away from Tory fantasy back to some sort of reality.
Trade deficit - so he needs to fix the Eurozone economy so they will buy more of our stuff ?
Trade deficit is as much, if not more so, an import problem as an export one. Our recovery is coming from consumption. We can't sustain that. We import energy. We import the tat we buy in shops. We import food. Maybe the pound is too strong? Eventually we'll run out of assets to sell foreigners (companies, London houses,etc) and then Sterling will get it in the neck.
Ozzy is doing a good job buying us borrowed time to sort out deeper more fundamental economic malaises (productivity, deficit, competitiveness) whilst simultaneously failing to address those deeper issues.
Yup he's buying the time and then promptly idling it away.
He really needs to go.
He's buying time because the LDs won't let him do what he needs to do now. If there is a coalition after the GE they won't let him do it then either, in which case a GO economy will be remarkably similar to a EM economy. Ed won't cut anything because the his activists and the unions would have kittens, George wouldn't cut anything significant because the LDs won't let him.
Depressingly I fully expect so more money to be pissed away in the Autumn Statement and the Budget to try and buy some votes given the current state of the polls.
The growth of the public sector helped to improve the lives of millions and millions of people. I am no brighter than my grandparents were, but they did not have the welfare state to help them make the most of their talents that I did. Thanks to the state, I had a healthy childhood, got a free education until the age of 22, and was given the time and space to find a career that suited me. I then helped establish a company that now employs over 20 people in well remunerated jobs, and which pays a good whack in tax each year. I owe so much to the public sector and hopefully my work in the private sector is paying some of that back. My story is one that is repeated across the country.
In theory, we could do without a public sector. But history shows us very clearly that, in practice, to have a society in which the maximum number of people have the best opportunity to lead fulfilling, happy lives a strong public sector is absolutely necessary.
Growth up q/q 0.7% unrevised. But the detail shows investment falling and the trade deficit widening again.
Whomsoever takes over from this chump has got an almost impossible task wrestling the economy away from Tory fantasy back to some sort of reality.
Trade deficit - so he needs to fix the Eurozone economy so they will buy more of our stuff ?
Trade deficit is as much, if not more so, an import problem as an export one. Our recovery is coming from consumption. We can't sustain that. We import energy. We import the tat we buy in shops. We import food. Maybe the pound is too strong? Eventually we'll run out of assets to sell foreigners (companies, London houses,etc) and then Sterling will get it in the neck.
Ozzy is doing a good job buying us borrowed time to sort out deeper more fundamental economic malaises (productivity, deficit, competitiveness) whilst simultaneously failing to address those deeper issues.
Yup he's buying the time and then promptly idling it away.
He really needs to go.
Pleasee explain what you would do if you were CofE. Do you have any constructive criticism?
The growth of the public sector helped to improve the lives of millions and millions of people. I am no brighter than my grandparents were, but they did not have the welfare state to help them make the most of their talents that I did. Thanks to the state, I had a healthy childhood, got a free education until the age of 22, and was given the time and space to find a career that suited me. I then helped establish a company that now employs over 20 people in well remunerated jobs, and which pays a good whack in tax each year. I owe so much to the public sector and hopefully my work in the private sector is paying some of that back. My story is one that is repeated across the country.
In theory, we could do without a public sector. But history shows us very clearly that, in practice, to have a society in which the maximum number of people have the best opportunity to lead fulfilling, happy lives a strong public sector is absolutely necessary.
I dont think anyone would disagree with any of that, no one said that lots of worthwhile and necessary things were not dont by the public sector, it was just pointed out that it doesn't actually make any money, it just recycles tax revenue from the private sector.
to lead fulfilling, happy lives a strong public sector is absolutely necessary.
Absolutely. Up to a point. Above that point the state becomes oppressive, limiting, destructive. There is a sweet spot, a maximum. We're well above it now. I don't know if the sweet spot is 25% GDP or 30% or 35%. But it's certainly not where we are or where the developed economy welfare states are.
Petros Fassoulas, chair of European Movement UK, said: "It's definitely not good to see so many EU citizens feel disenfranchised because they could not vote. EU citizens' right to vote anywhere they live in the EU is a fundamental right and should not be compromised."
I think there is a specific line in the treaty that states that it is up to individual countries to decide who can vote in national elections (said line was much quoted at the time of the prisoner debate, although the was ECJ, rather than EU related). As it is a treaty item, it would require the agreement of all 27 members of the EU to change to allow foreign nationals to vote in the UK.
@DavidL - "In reality the very well paid of 2007, such as bankers and financial investors, are doing much worse than they were then and have borne more than their share of the pain."
Really? Property prices have soared, quantitative easing has provided all kinds of opportunities, the markets have generally been moving northwards, the cost of borrowing is lower than it has ever been before, dividend taxes have been cut. There's never been a better time to be very wealthy.
Property prices have only soared in some very specific parts of London - my own former property in SE London is currently values at £260000 - I sold it in 2008 for £250000 and a year before that it was valued at £300000. My mother's house in the north-east is valued £10,000 less than when she died 4 years ago.
Bankers and investors do tend to live in very specific parts of London.
Really -how do they squeeze into Islington when it´s stuffed with mansion tax subsidised thornberries:)? More seriously the bulk of investors live all over the UK while their pension funds do the investing. Even most bank managers don't live in London and many stockbrokers, etc., commute from outside the city.
The growth of the public sector helped to improve the lives of millions and millions of people. I am no brighter than my grandparents were, but they did not have the welfare state to help them make the most of their talents that I did. Thanks to the state, I had a healthy childhood, got a free education until the age of 22, and was given the time and space to find a career that suited me. I then helped establish a company that now employs over 20 people in well remunerated jobs, and which pays a good whack in tax each year. I owe so much to the public sector and hopefully my work in the private sector is paying some of that back. My story is one that is repeated across the country.
In theory, we could do without a public sector. But history shows us very clearly that, in practice, to have a society in which the maximum number of people have the best opportunity to lead fulfilling, happy lives a strong public sector is absolutely necessary.
No-one suggested abolishing the public sector but some seem to think you can have one without a vibrant private sector. You can't.
O/T but is the universal postal guarantee single price thing not a bit ridiculous?
We don't require McDonalds to charge the same as the Savoy Grill, or Lada the same as Mercedes. If you live on a remote island you should surely expect to pay more to get stuff delivered to you...?
Document from the 40s outlining the "New" National Health Service
"...it is not a charity. You are all paying for it"
Chris Hopson CEO FTN (@ChrisCEOHopson) 20/11/2014 13:44 Look what my mum found - we think it was given to my dad when he left the Navy in 1948. Love the words at the bottom! pic.twitter.com/C1FzC132EX
to lead fulfilling, happy lives a strong public sector is absolutely necessary.
Absolutely. Up to a point. Above that point the state becomes oppressive, limiting, destructive. There is a sweet spot, a maximum. We're well above it now. I don't know if the sweet spot is 25% GDP or 30% or 35%. But it's certainly not where we are or where the developed economy welfare states are.
What was the percentage of GDP that went on public sector spending in the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s? It would also be interesting to know what it is in other parts of Northern Europe.
I can see Ed being elected. And like Gordon, that will be mission accomplished.
With no real policies apart from spending, there will be economic problems, and his response will be the Animal Farm one.
Gordon blamed America, Ed will blame his own Farmer Jones - the financial markets or the Gnomes of Zurich, those rich bankers who he hasn't , unlike Blair, bothered to ingratiate himself with.
With a crisis looming, he will go to the country with a choice. Either choose me, fair Ed, the man on your side, or those shadowy lizard people who lurk at the bottom of your garden.
Obviously, he'll wrap it up in gobbledy-gook, but his acolytes will simplify the message a little.
As private Fraser says ... "We're doomed, I tell ye, doomed."
I would not want to hold any stocks after mid 2018.
Equity markets are looking very toppy - but they can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. They may yet climb for another year or more before they inevitably crash. Calling the top correctly is a fool's game. But once the crash happens (say 30%+ fall from peak) then is the time to pile back into equities. If the crash comes before 2018 then 2018 might be a very good year to go long on the FTSE!
FTSE looks great, expect a long up cycle for the next decade and more having gone nowhere for the past 15.
F1: Twitter suggesting the insanity of standing restarts has been abolished (planned for introduction next year), likewise the stupidity of double points.
Growth up q/q 0.7% unrevised. But the detail shows investment falling and the trade deficit widening again.
Whomsoever takes over from this chump has got an almost impossible task wrestling the economy away from Tory fantasy back to some sort of reality.
Trade deficit - so he needs to fix the Eurozone economy so they will buy more of our stuff ?
Trade deficit is as much, if not more so, an import problem as an export one. Our recovery is coming from consumption. We can't sustain that. We import energy. We import the tat we buy in shops. We import food. Maybe the pound is too strong? Eventually we'll run out of assets to sell foreigners (companies, London houses,etc) and then Sterling will get it in the neck.
Ozzy is doing a good job buying us borrowed time to sort out deeper more fundamental economic malaises (productivity, deficit, competitiveness) whilst simultaneously failing to address those deeper issues.
Yup he's buying the time and then promptly idling it away.
He really needs to go.
I feel like I'm talking to tim here - what would you have (had) him do?
More infrastructure spending on Day 1 in office when the world was melting around him and perfectly sensible countries were being marked down as "near-junk" (own currency or not)? I don't buy the currency-issuing protective shield.
Cut more? You are on a political betting site and if this is your answer you show your lack of insight into how politics really works (is it right? Of course not; is it the only option? for sure).
I owe so much to the public sector and hopefully my work in the private sector is paying some of that back.
I don't disagree with the bulk of what you wrote SO. But this sentence is odd. Your parents paid (I assume) tax. You did not owe anything to the public sector; you were getting what your parents had paid for.
The fact that you got what you got (as I did and probably around the same time) was as a result of our parents' decisions along with those of many others that collective provision was the best way to provide certain public goods. But it was paid for by our parents - who paid considerably higher taxes than now and earned less. It was not some sort of charity from the state for which we ought to be grateful. The state was doing what we wanted them to do.
And so we don't owe it anything. What you and I do - in the way that we pay our taxes - is require the state to continue providing and providing well those collective services for us, our children and our fellow citizens, much as we benefited and continue to benefit.
But I view the state as my servant not as some munificent master to whom I should be grateful and for whom I should work to show my gratitude. That strikes me as a rather feudal approach.
The growth of the public sector helped to improve the lives of millions and millions of people. I am no brighter than my grandparents were, but they did not have the welfare state to help them make the most of their talents that I did. Thanks to the state, I had a healthy childhood, got a free education until the age of 22, and was given the time and space to find a career that suited me. I then helped establish a company that now employs over 20 people in well remunerated jobs, and which pays a good whack in tax each year. I owe so much to the public sector and hopefully my work in the private sector is paying some of that back. My story is one that is repeated across the country.
In theory, we could do without a public sector. But history shows us very clearly that, in practice, to have a society in which the maximum number of people have the best opportunity to lead fulfilling, happy lives a strong public sector is absolutely necessary.
No-one suggested abolishing the public sector but some seem to think you can have one without a vibrant private sector. You can't.
Absolutely. But the private sector has benefited massively from the public sector and will continue to do so. Long-term, a strong public sector is always in the private sector's interests. They need each other - in practice if not in theory.
I may not expect Labour to do much for me because there are poorer people than me who should be the priority but I feel strongly that Labour simply neither like nor respect people like me and that some Labour people view people like me with a certain contempt.
It is one - important - reason why I cannot bring myself to vote for the current Labour party even though in the past I have and despite the fact that I admire some past and present Labour politicians. I just don't think that Labour values the largely silent getting on with life/ trying to do the right thing classes, whether they're working/middle or upper class.
It's a bit hard to respond to that as it's a generalised impression - can only say that it doesn't correspond to the Labour people who I know, and I wonder if the media filter isn't giving you a one-sided view. I know from personal experience that if I say something uncontroversial about helping people who are just doing a serious job (whether in the private or public sector), it simply isn't reported at all. In the same way, the media give the impression that most MPs don't have experience of real life (in terms of making their way in a non-political job), when that's actually not true.
I don't think the portrayal of all Tories as one-eyed toffs is right either, by the way. Most MPs on both sides are pretty keen to help a broad spectrum - the differences are in emphasis and priority rather than basic ambition.
The growth of the public sector helped to improve the lives of millions and millions of people. I am no brighter than my grandparents were, but they did not have the welfare state to help them make the most of their talents that I did. Thanks to the state, I had a healthy childhood, got a free education until the age of 22, and was given the time and space to find a career that suited me. I then helped establish a company that now employs over 20 people in well remunerated jobs, and which pays a good whack in tax each year. I owe so much to the public sector and hopefully my work in the private sector is paying some of that back. My story is one that is repeated across the country.
In theory, we could do without a public sector. But history shows us very clearly that, in practice, to have a society in which the maximum number of people have the best opportunity to lead fulfilling, happy lives a strong public sector is absolutely necessary.
Even Singapore and Dubai have public sectors. I'd rather live in either of those than in a country such as France, Scotland or North Korea which barely have private sectors.
Growth up q/q 0.7% unrevised. But the detail shows investment falling and the trade deficit widening again.
Whomsoever takes over from this chump has got an almost impossible task wrestling the economy away from Tory fantasy back to some sort of reality.
Trade deficit - so he needs to fix the Eurozone economy so they will buy more of our stuff ?
Trade deficit is as much, if not more so, an import problem as an export one. Our recovery is coming from consumption. We can't sustain that. We import energy. We import the tat we buy in shops. We import food. Maybe the pound is too strong? Eventually we'll run out of assets to sell foreigners (companies, London houses,etc) and then Sterling will get it in the neck.
Ozzy is doing a good job buying us borrowed time to sort out deeper more fundamental economic malaises (productivity, deficit, competitiveness) whilst simultaneously failing to address those deeper issues.
Yup he's buying the time and then promptly idling it away.
He really needs to go.
I feel like I'm talking to tim here - what would you have (had) him do?
More infrastructure spending on Day 1 in office when the world was melting around him and perfectly sensible countries were being marked down as "near-junk" (own currency or not)? I don't buy the currency-issuing protective shield.
Cut more? You are on a political betting site and if this is your answer you show your lack of insight into how politics really works (is it right? Of course not; is it the only option? for sure).
Cut less? Shurely not...
WHAT!!???
Obama pushed through an $800bn stimulus in the teeth of the storm and blinkered opposition by the Right.
It worked. The US is the fastest growing economy in the western world and has a budget deficit below 3% of GDP.
I may not expect Labour to do much for me because there are poorer people than me who should be the priority but I feel strongly that Labour simply neither like nor respect people like me and that some Labour people view people like me with a certain contempt.
It is one - important - reason why I cannot bring myself to vote for the current Labour party even though in the past I have and despite the fact that I admire some past and present Labour politicians. I just don't think that Labour values the largely silent getting on with life/ trying to do the right thing classes, whether they're working/middle or upper class.
It's a bit hard to respond to that as it's a generalised impression - can only say that it doesn't correspond to the Labour people who I know, and I wonder if the media filter isn't giving you a one-sided view. I know from personal experience that if I say something uncontroversial about helping people who are just doing a serious job (whether in the private or public sector), it simply isn't reported at all. In the same way, the media give the impression that most MPs don't have experience of real life (in terms of making their way in a non-political job), when that's actually not true.
I don't think the portrayal of all Tories as one-eyed toffs is right either, by the way. Most MPs on both sides are pretty keen to help a broad spectrum - the differences are in emphasis and priority rather than basic ambition.
I don't think this applies to you Nick, but you regularly get Labour partisans that knock people from the home counties, people who have big houses, people who have invested their retirement prospects into flats they let out, people that want to preserve British culture, people that work in finance or law, people that like to display their national identity etc. Even if you don't exactly fall into one of those groups, it's easy to feel that so many of your family and friends do that you're part of the demographic that is disliked.
Growth up q/q 0.7% unrevised. But the detail shows investment falling and the trade deficit widening again.
Whomsoever takes over from this chump has got an almost impossible task wrestling the economy away from Tory fantasy back to some sort of reality.
Trade deficit - so he needs to fix the Eurozone economy so they will buy more of our stuff ?
Trade deficit is as much, if not more so, an import problem as an export one. Our recovery is coming from consumption. We can't sustain that. We import energy. We import the tat we buy in shops. We import food. Maybe the pound is too strong? Eventually we'll run out of assets to sell foreigners (companies, London houses,etc) and then Sterling will get it in the neck. .
Would you rather we manufactured our own tat ? Great - but everyone wants wages to rise - so how will that work. Ban or add a tariff on tat ?
Not easy to fix trade deficits and keep wages rising.
I owe so much to the public sector and hopefully my work in the private sector is paying some of that back.
I don't disagree with the bulk of what you wrote SO. But this sentence is odd. Your parents paid (I assume) tax. You did not owe anything to the public sector; you were getting what your parents had paid for.
The fact that you got what you got (as I did and probably around the same time) was as a result of our parents' decisions along with those of many others that collective provision was the best way to provide certain public goods. But it was paid for by our parents - who paid considerably higher taxes than now and earned less. It was not some sort of charity from the state for which we ought to be grateful. The state was doing what we wanted them to do.
And so we don't owe it anything. What you and I do - in the way that we pay our taxes - is require the state to continue providing and providing well those collective services for us, our children and our fellow citizens, much as we benefited and continue to benefit.
But I view the state as my servant not as some munificent master to whom I should be grateful and for whom I should work to show my gratitude. That strikes me as a rather feudal approach.
The tax my parents paid did not cover the costs of my education or healthcare or all the other benefits that I (and my brother and sister) received from the welfare state. It was the pooling of the resources of all taxpayers that achieved that - with the best off rightly paying the most. The state mandated it. When the wealthy were left to their own devices, there was no universal education or healthcare.
The growth of the public sector helped to improve the lives of millions and millions of people. I am no brighter than my grandparents were, but they did not have the welfare state to help them make the most of their talents that I did. Thanks to the state, I had a healthy childhood, got a free education until the age of 22, and was given the time and space to find a career that suited me. I then helped establish a company that now employs over 20 people in well remunerated jobs, and which pays a good whack in tax each year. I owe so much to the public sector and hopefully my work in the private sector is paying some of that back. My story is one that is repeated across the country.
In theory, we could do without a public sector. But history shows us very clearly that, in practice, to have a society in which the maximum number of people have the best opportunity to lead fulfilling, happy lives a strong public sector is absolutely necessary.
No-one suggested abolishing the public sector but some seem to think you can have one without a vibrant private sector. You can't.
Absolutely. But the private sector has benefited massively from the public sector and will continue to do so. Long-term, a strong public sector is always in the private sector's interests. They need each other - in practice if not in theory.
I am not sure how these laudable aims stack up in a global economy where we are competing against economies which have much smaller public sectors, hence much smaller taxes, and so even if wages were equivalent (which they might be sooner or later) they are still going to easily undercut us.
A lot of particularly Asia economies can actually get away with being low wage and have a reasonable standard of living because the taxes are so low. In the UK was pay 40% of GDP in taxes, in a lot of South East Asia its less than 15%
My concern medium to long term is that the UK is woefully uncompetitive with Asia, and there is no sign of that gap coming close to closing, we will eventually be forced to swallow a 20-30% drop in living standard to compete, much of that will come at the expense of the public sector.
Even Singapore and Dubai have public sectors. I'd rather live in either of those than in a country such as France, Scotland or North Korea which barely have private sectors.
Growth up q/q 0.7% unrevised. But the detail shows investment falling and the trade deficit widening again.
Whomsoever takes over from this chump has got an almost impossible task wrestling the economy away from Tory fantasy back to some sort of reality.
Trade deficit - so he needs to fix the Eurozone economy so they will buy more of our stuff ?
Trade deficit is as much, if not more so, an import problem as an export one. Our recovery is coming from consumption. We can't sustain that. We import energy. We import the tat we buy in shops. We import food. Maybe the pound is too strong? Eventually we'll run out of assets to sell foreigners (companies, London houses,etc) and then Sterling will get it in the neck.
Ozzy is doing a good job buying us borrowed time to sort out deeper more fundamental economic malaises (productivity, deficit, competitiveness) whilst simultaneously failing to address those deeper issues.
Yup he's buying the time and then promptly idling it away.
He really needs to go.
I feel like I'm talking to tim here - what would you have (had) him do?
More infrastructure spending on Day 1 in office when the world was melting around him and perfectly sensible countries were being marked down as "near-junk" (own currency or not)? I don't buy the currency-issuing protective shield.
Cut more? You are on a political betting site and if this is your answer you show your lack of insight into how politics really works (is it right? Of course not; is it the only option? for sure).
Cut less? Shurely not...
WHAT!!???
Obama pushed through an $800bn stimulus in the teeth of the storm and blinkered opposition by the Right.
It worked. The US is the fastest growing economy in the western world and has a budget deficit below 3% of GDP.
Petros Fassoulas, chair of European Movement UK, said: "It's definitely not good to see so many EU citizens feel disenfranchised because they could not vote. EU citizens' right to vote anywhere they live in the EU is a fundamental right and should not be compromised."
I think there is a specific line in the treaty that states that it is up to individual countries to decide who can vote in national elections (said line was much quoted at the time of the prisoner debate, although the was ECJ, rather than EU related). As it is a treaty item, it would require the agreement of all 27 members of the EU to change to allow foreign nationals to vote in the UK.
Good job too. It would be very wrong if non-Britons in the UK get to swing the vote on, for example, whether we get a referendum on staying in the EU.
We need to be moving the other way: stripping Commonwealth citizens of getting the vote here. It's a completely outdated concept, and most of the Commonwealth has moved with the time and dropped it. It's about time we did.
Recently I watched the live stream of the SNP event at the Glasgow Hydro Arena. I started watching the event assuming I would be witnessing a large and impressive political rally. What I saw was the birth of a new religion, Yesism.
It is impossible to compare what I saw at the Hydro arena with any sort of political rally seen recently in the United Kingdom. Rather, the image that sprang to mind is the evangelical megachurch. The similarities are striking: new members were approached directly and welcomed into the group and invited to raise their hands, there was constant affirmation of the shared beliefs of the group ('"Scotland will become an independent country."), there was music familiar to the groups follower's ('Caledonia' by Dougie Maclean - 'everyone sing along!' - and 'Son I Voted Yes' by Stanley Odd) inspiring sermons were given by various prominent party figures (Stewart Hosie, Alex Salmond...) and an offertory ('Please - donate to SNP now!')
Whomsoever takes over from this chump has got an almost impossible task wrestling the economy away from Tory fantasy back to some sort of reality.
Trade deficit - so he needs to fix the Eurozone economy so they will buy more of our stuff ?
Trade deficit is as much, if not more so, an import problem as an export one. Our recovery is coming from consumption. We can't sustain that. We import energy. We import the tat we buy in shops. We import food. Maybe the pound is too strong? Eventually we'll run out of assets to sell foreigners (companies, London houses,etc) and then Sterling will get it in the neck.
Ozzy is doing a good job buying us borrowed time to sort out deeper more fundamental economic malaises (productivity, deficit, competitiveness) whilst simultaneously failing to address those deeper issues.
Yup he's buying the time and then promptly idling it away.
He really needs to go.
I feel like I'm talking to tim here - what would you have (had) him do?
More infrastructure spending on Day 1 in office when the world was melting around him and perfectly sensible countries were being marked down as "near-junk" (own currency or not)? I don't buy the currency-issuing protective shield.
Cut more? You are on a political betting site and if this is your answer you show your lack of insight into how politics really works (is it right? Of course not; is it the only option? for sure).
Cut less? Shurely not...
WHAT!!???
Obama pushed through an $800bn stimulus in the teeth of the storm and blinkered opposition by the Right.
It worked. The US is the fastest growing economy in the western world and has a budget deficit below 3% of GDP.
Wake up rightwingers.
It is a valid argument and we are dealing with counterfactuals but I really don't think that a spending plan, from a european albeit non-eurozone, but then again non-reserve currency-owning country, would have flown well just at that time which was, as you remember, the eye of the storm.
I think, rather, that we would have been lumped in to the "profligate" bucket and penalised accordingly.
IMO GO was right immediately to talk the talk (he transparently didn't walk the walk) of austerity to reassure the capital markets and then embark upon an infrastructure spending plan.
As you will also remember, at the time it was pretty scary with no one being able to say for sure which would be the next "target".
We are doing worse than the US maybe, but a _lot_ better than our EU friends and, all things considered, that is where the comparison should be made.
Growth up q/q 0.7% unrevised. But the detail shows investment falling and the trade deficit widening again.
Whomsoever takes over from this chump has got an almost impossible task wrestling the economy away from Tory fantasy back to some sort of reality.
Trade deficit - so he needs to fix the Eurozone economy so they will buy more of our stuff ?
Trade deficit is as much, if not more so, an import problem as an export one. Our recovery is coming from consumption. We can't sustain that. We import energy. We import the tat we buy in shops. We import food. Maybe the pound is too strong? Eventually we'll run out of assets to sell foreigners (companies, London houses,etc) and then Sterling will get it in the neck.
Ozzy is doing a good job buying us borrowed time to sort out deeper more fundamental economic malaises (productivity, deficit, competitiveness) whilst simultaneously failing to address those deeper issues.
Yup he's buying the time and then promptly idling it away.
He really needs to go.
I feel like I'm talking to tim here - what would you have (had) him do?
More infrastructure spending on Day 1 in office when the world was melting around him and perfectly sensible countries were being marked down as "near-junk" (own currency or not)? I don't buy the currency-issuing protective shield.
Cut more? You are on a political betting site and if this is your answer you show your lack of insight into how politics really works (is it right? Of course not; is it the only option? for sure).
Cut less? Shurely not...
WHAT!!???
Obama pushed through an $800bn stimulus in the teeth of the storm and blinkered opposition by the Right.
It worked. The US is the fastest growing economy in the western world and has a budget deficit below 3% of GDP.
Wake up rightwingers.
Shale Gas
The majority of the gas is in sectors not materially affected by cheap energy.
Growth up q/q 0.7% unrevised. But the detail shows investment falling and the trade deficit widening again.
Whomsoever takes over from this chump has got an almost impossible task wrestling the economy away from Tory fantasy back to some sort of reality.
Trade deficit - so he needs to fix the Eurozone economy so they will buy more of our stuff ?
Trade deficit is as much, if not more so, an import problem as an export one. Our recovery is coming from consumption. We can't sustain that. We import energy. We import the tat we buy in shops. We import food. Maybe the pound is too strong? Eventually we'll run out of assets to sell foreigners (companies, London houses,etc) and then Sterling will get it in the neck.
Ozzy is doing a good job buying us borrowed time to sort out deeper more fundamental economic malaises (productivity, deficit, competitiveness) whilst simultaneously failing to address those deeper issues.
Yup he's buying the time and then promptly idling it away.
He really needs to go.
I feel like I'm talking to tim here - what would you have (had) him do?
More infrastructure spending on Day 1 in office when the world was melting around him and perfectly sensible countries were being marked down as "near-junk" (own currency or not)? I don't buy the currency-issuing protective shield.
Cut more? You are on a political betting site and if this is your answer you show your lack of insight into how politics really works (is it right? Of course not; is it the only option? for sure).
Cut less? Shurely not...
WHAT!!???
Obama pushed through an $800bn stimulus in the teeth of the storm and blinkered opposition by the Right.
It worked. The US is the fastest growing economy in the western world and has a budget deficit below 3% of GDP.
Growth up q/q 0.7% unrevised. But the detail shows investment falling and the trade deficit widening again.
Whomsoever takes over from this chump has got an almost impossible task wrestling the economy away from Tory fantasy back to some sort of reality.
Trade deficit - so he needs to fix the Eurozone economy so they will buy more of our stuff ?
Trade deficit is as much, if not more so, an import problem as an export one. Our recovery is coming from consumption. We can't sustain that. We import energy. We import the tat we buy in shops. We import food. Maybe the pound is too strong? Eventually we'll run out of assets to sell foreigners (companies, London houses,etc) and then Sterling will get it in the neck.
Ozzy is doing a good job buying us borrowed time to sort out deeper more fundamental economic malaises (productivity, deficit, competitiveness) whilst simultaneously failing to address those deeper issues.
Yup he's buying the time and then promptly idling it away.
He really needs to go.
I feel like I'm talking to tim here - what would you have (had) him do?
More infrastructure spending on Day 1 in office when the world was melting around him and perfectly sensible countries were being marked down as "near-junk" (own currency or not)? I don't buy the currency-issuing protective shield.
Cut more? You are on a political betting site and if this is your answer you show your lack of insight into how politics really works (is it right? Of course not; is it the only option? for sure).
Cut less? Shurely not...
WHAT!!???
Obama pushed through an $800bn stimulus in the teeth of the storm and blinkered opposition by the Right.
It worked. The US is the fastest growing economy in the western world and has a budget deficit below 3% of GDP.
Wake up rightwingers.
Shale Gas
The majority of the gas is in sectors not materially affected by cheap energy.
Its directly or indirectly causes the drop in the price of oil, and made the US go from being a net importer to a net exporter of oil, must have had a bit of an influence on their economic fortunes...
Growth up q/q 0.7% unrevised. But the detail shows investment falling and the trade deficit widening again.
Whomsoever takes over from this chump has got an almost impossible task wrestling the economy away from Tory fantasy back to some sort of reality.
Trade deficit - so he needs to fix the Eurozone economy so they will buy more of our stuff ?
Trade deficit is as much, if not more so, an import problem as an export one. Our recovery is coming from consumption. We can't sustain that. We import energy. We import the tat we buy in shops. We import food. Maybe the pound is too strong? Eventually we'll run out of assets to sell foreigners (companies, London houses,etc) and then Sterling will get it in the neck.
Ozzy is doing a good job buying us borrowed time to sort out deeper more fundamental economic malaises (productivity, deficit, competitiveness) whilst simultaneously failing to address those deeper issues.
Yup he's buying the time and then promptly idling it away.
He really needs to go.
I feel like I'm talking to tim here - what would you have (had) him do?
More infrastructure spending on Day 1 in office when the world was melting around him and perfectly sensible countries were being marked down as "near-junk" (own currency or not)? I don't buy the currency-issuing protective shield.
Cut more? You are on a political betting site and if this is your answer you show your lack of insight into how politics really works (is it right? Of course not; is it the only option? for sure).
Cut less? Shurely not...
WHAT!!???
Obama pushed through an $800bn stimulus in the teeth of the storm and blinkered opposition by the Right.
It worked. The US is the fastest growing economy in the western world and has a budget deficit below 3% of GDP.
Wake up rightwingers.
BenM. I'm a Keynesian and I agree with economic stimulus during times of depression. But you realise that counter-cyclical policy means you then need to have austerity when unemployment has dropped again. We're now down to 6%. That's within the bracket the OECD considers "full employment". Even if you disagree with their numbers, we'll be at full employment within a year or two. You need to repay the borrowing back eventually.
Its directly or indirectly causes the drop in the price of oil, and made the US go from being a net importer to a net exporter of oil, must have had a bit of an influence on their economic fortunes...
I should have written "growth", not "gas", which clouded my meaning. Shale gas has definitely helped the US economy, especially in certain subsectors. But the bulk of growth isn't down to that.
Its directly or indirectly causes the drop in the price of oil, and made the US go from being a net importer to a net exporter of oil, must have had a bit of an influence on their economic fortunes...
I should have written "growth", not "gas", which clouded my meaning. Shale gas has definitely helped the US economy, especially in certain subsectors. But the bulk of growth isn't down to that.
I'd have thought US labour (or labor) regulations were critical, combined with a weakening USD over the last 5-6 years. It's a much more nimble economy than anywhere in Europe.
If anyone wants to back Labour to win most Scottish seats, you can now have 5/4 with Ladbrokes. Somebody is investing a lot of money on the SNP and has single handedly forced their odds down from 11/10 to 4/7 in the last 48 hours.
Its directly or indirectly causes the drop in the price of oil, and made the US go from being a net importer to a net exporter of oil, must have had a bit of an influence on their economic fortunes...
I should have written "growth", not "gas", which clouded my meaning. Shale gas has definitely helped the US economy, especially in certain subsectors. But the bulk of growth isn't down to that.
I'd have thought US labour (or labor) regulations were critical, combined with a weakening USD over the last 5-6 years. It's a much more nimble economy than anywhere in Europe.
Mass immigration of cheap labour you mean ? Yes well good luck if GO goes down that route.
If anyone wants to back Labour to win most Scottish seats, you can now have 5/4 with Ladbrokes. Somebody is investing a lot of money on the SNP and has single handedly forced their odds down from 11/10 to 4/7 in the last 48 hours.
And has led to America's great, er, friend and ally, Saudi Arabia, opening the taps to try and destroy American marginal energy production. Which is bad for America, but worse for Russia, so rather double-edged for the Yanks.
I am half expecting a "terrorist" attack on some Saudi export/production facilities, but unsure who will be actually funding this false flag operation. (Back off, Tap, this is MY tinfoil!)
The growth of the public sector helped to improve the lives of millions and millions of people. I am no brighter than my grandparents were, but they did not have the welfare state to help them make the most of their talents that I did. Thanks to the state, I had a healthy childhood, got a free education until the age of 22, and was given the time and space to find a career that suited me. I then helped establish a company that now employs over 20 people in well remunerated jobs, and which pays a good whack in tax each year. I owe so much to the public sector and hopefully my work in the private sector is paying some of that back. My story is one that is repeated across the country.
In theory, we could do without a public sector. But history shows us very clearly that, in practice, to have a society in which the maximum number of people have the best opportunity to lead fulfilling, happy lives a strong public sector is absolutely necessary.
No-one suggested abolishing the public sector but some seem to think you can have one without a vibrant private sector. You can't.
Absolutely. But the private sector has benefited massively from the public sector and will continue to do so. Long-term, a strong public sector is always in the private sector's interests. They need each other - in practice if not in theory.
Yes - and the issue is, how do we compete globally with countries that devote a much smaller share of their national wealth to the public sector than we do? I don't know - but that's the 'elephant in the room' that all of the parties refuse to address - tinkering round the edges and seeing looming chasms of difference between their positions, when in truth, they're bickering over roundings in a global context.
Its directly or indirectly causes the drop in the price of oil, and made the US go from being a net importer to a net exporter of oil, must have had a bit of an influence on their economic fortunes...
I should have written "growth", not "gas", which clouded my meaning. Shale gas has definitely helped the US economy, especially in certain subsectors. But the bulk of growth isn't down to that.
I'd have thought US labour (or labor) regulations were critical, combined with a weakening USD over the last 5-6 years. It's a much more nimble economy than anywhere in Europe.
Mass immigration of cheap labour you mean ? Yes well good luck if GO goes down that route.
Not an easy game being chancellor with no money.
No I meant flexible labour, although a low minimum wage, a willingness to work at the minimum wage, and a limited benefit system also helps hugely. It's sort of the 'antifrance'.
Its directly or indirectly causes the drop in the price of oil, and made the US go from being a net importer to a net exporter of oil, must have had a bit of an influence on their economic fortunes...
I should have written "growth", not "gas", which clouded my meaning. Shale gas has definitely helped the US economy, especially in certain subsectors. But the bulk of growth isn't down to that.
I'd have thought US labour (or labor) regulations were critical, combined with a weakening USD over the last 5-6 years. It's a much more nimble economy than anywhere in Europe.
Mass immigration of cheap labour you mean ? Yes well good luck if GO goes down that route.
Not an easy game being chancellor with no money.
Not to mention when you have a group of fantastist around that think you can go on borrowing £100bn every year for ever to maintain their current lifestyle. Also the current debt interest is about £50bn a year and that gets £4bn a year worse every year because we are borrowing more each year. Make no mistake, developing Asia is after our ass, they are vastly more productive and competitive than we are, and we are going to find it increasingly hard to make money at all, never mind pay off the debt.
Oil magnate Roy Hobbs said: “Scotland is both an Eden and a trap. Barbados is worthless after an afternoon on the beach at Broughty Ferry and once you’ve seen Glasgow, how could New York ever satisfy?"
Recently I watched the live stream of the SNP event at the Glasgow Hydro Arena. I started watching the event assuming I would be witnessing a large and impressive political rally. What I saw was the birth of a new religion, Yesism.
It is impossible to compare what I saw at the Hydro arena with any sort of political rally seen recently in the United Kingdom. Rather, the image that sprang to mind is the evangelical megachurch. The similarities are striking: new members were approached directly and welcomed into the group and invited to raise their hands, there was constant affirmation of the shared beliefs of the group ('"Scotland will become an independent country."), there was music familiar to the groups follower's ('Caledonia' by Dougie Maclean - 'everyone sing along!' - and 'Son I Voted Yes' by Stanley Odd) inspiring sermons were given by various prominent party figures (Stewart Hosie, Alex Salmond...) and an offertory ('Please - donate to SNP now!')
If anyone wants to back Labour to win most Scottish seats, you can now have 5/4 with Ladbrokes. Somebody is investing a lot of money on the SNP and has single handedly forced their odds down from 11/10 to 4/7 in the last 48 hours.
In your world, what constitutes "a lot"?
Well, a few grand. But it's a very determined punt. Going from shop to shop, all over the North of England, having the maximum stake (around £150 each time) and happily taking the shorter and shorter prices.
The value now should be in backing the SNP to be winning the seats that are their 25th, 26th etc. best prospects, which are still odds against, but they would probably have to win to be the biggest party.
I may not expect Labour to do much for me because there are poorer people than me who should be the priority but I feel strongly that Labour simply neither like nor respect people like me and that some Labour people view people like me with a certain contempt.
It is one - important - reason why I cannot bring myself to vote for the current Labour party even though in the past I have and despite the fact that I admire some past and present Labour politicians. I just don't think that Labour values the largely silent getting on with life/ trying to do the right thing classes, whether they're working/middle or upper class.
It's a bit hard to respond to that as it's a generalised impression - can only say that it doesn't correspond to the Labour people who I know, and I wonder if the media filter isn't giving you a one-sided view. I know from personal experience that if I say something uncontroversial about helping people who are just doing a serious job (whether in the private or public sector), it simply isn't reported at all. In the same way, the media give the impression that most MPs don't have experience of real life (in terms of making their way in a non-political job), when that's actually not true.
I don't think the portrayal of all Tories as one-eyed toffs is right either, by the way. Most MPs on both sides are pretty keen to help a broad spectrum - the differences are in emphasis and priority rather than basic ambition.
Nick: it's not based on media filters. I rarely read the newspapers and if what a politician has said interests me I do try and find out more about it rather than just rely on the report. E.g. I bothered to listen to May's speech to the Police Federation.
But it is based on what I hear Labour politicians, including my own MP - when she has responded to concerns I have raised, saying. And I have a regard for some Labour politicians so I am aware that not all think in that way. But that is the impression that EdM's Labour party have given me for some time now and while it may be unfair on you (though I am not one of your potential constituents) and others in your party, it will affect how I vote.
I think it is something which Labour need to think harder about it. There is a very real danger in my view that they are seen as not being on the side of those trying to do the right thing. They risk being seen as a party which puts people in certain groups and labels them as "bad" or "good" and targets them accordingly. And that claims that it has copyright over the concept of "fairness" when it strikes me that a lot of their policies are anything but fair.
It's the mirror image of the way the Tories are seen as not on the side of the ordinary person, unfair as that may be.
Growth up q/q 0.7% unrevised. But the detail shows investment falling and the trade deficit widening again.
Whomsoever takes over from this chump has got an almost impossible task wrestling the economy away from Tory fantasy back to some sort of reality.
Trade deficit - so he needs to fix the Eurozone economy so they will buy more of our stuff ?
Trade deficit is as much, if not more so, an import problem as an export one. Our recovery is coming from consumption. We can't sustain that. We import energy. We import the tat we buy in shops. We import food. Maybe the pound is too strong? Eventually we'll run out of assets to sell foreigners (companies, London houses,etc) and then Sterling will get it in the neck.
Ozzy is doing a good job buying us borrowed time to sort out deeper more fundamental economic malaises (productivity, deficit, competitiveness) whilst simultaneously failing to address those deeper issues.
Yup he's buying the time and then promptly idling it away.
He really needs to go.
I feel like I'm talking to tim here - what would you have (had) him do?
More infrastructure spending on Day 1 in office when the world was melting around him and perfectly sensible countries were being marked down as "near-junk" (own currency or not)? I don't buy the currency-issuing protective shield.
Cut more? You are on a political betting site and if this is your answer you show your lack of insight into how politics really works (is it right? Of course not; is it the only option? for sure).
Cut less? Shurely not...
WHAT!!???
Obama pushed through an $800bn stimulus in the teeth of the storm and blinkered opposition by the Right.
It worked. The US is the fastest growing economy in the western world and has a budget deficit below 3% of GDP.
Wake up rightwingers.
I take it you also support the US health system then. If you don't tell Andy - I won't breathe a word.
BTW you do realise that we come a very close second to the US on growth - how's Ed's m8's France doing?
I could well have this wrong as have only just heard Cleggs comments about EU benefits...
Isnt a bit ridiculous to say EU citizens are only entitled to in work benefits once they have paid into the system for a while, so as to pay for them? If someone is earning so little they are entitled to in work benefits, they will barely pay any tax anyway will they?
Recently I watched the live stream of the SNP event at the Glasgow Hydro Arena. I started watching the event assuming I would be witnessing a large and impressive political rally. What I saw was the birth of a new religion, Yesism.
It is impossible to compare what I saw at the Hydro arena with any sort of political rally seen recently in the United Kingdom. Rather, the image that sprang to mind is the evangelical megachurch. The similarities are striking: new members were approached directly and welcomed into the group and invited to raise their hands, there was constant affirmation of the shared beliefs of the group ('"Scotland will become an independent country."), there was music familiar to the groups follower's ('Caledonia' by Dougie Maclean - 'everyone sing along!' - and 'Son I Voted Yes' by Stanley Odd) inspiring sermons were given by various prominent party figures (Stewart Hosie, Alex Salmond...) and an offertory ('Please - donate to SNP now!')
The growth of the public sector helped to improve the lives of millions and millions of people. I am no brighter than my grandparents were, but they did not have the welfare state to help them make the most of their talents that I did. Thanks to the state, I had a healthy childhood, got a free education until the age of 22, and was given the time and space to find a career that suited me. I then helped establish a company that now employs over 20 people in well remunerated jobs, and which pays a good whack in tax each year. I owe so much to the public sector and hopefully my work in the private sector is paying some of that back. My story is one that is repeated across the country.
In theory, we could do without a public sector. But history shows us very clearly that, in practice, to have a society in which the maximum number of people have the best opportunity to lead fulfilling, happy lives a strong public sector is absolutely necessary.
No-one suggested abolishing the public sector but some seem to think you can have one without a vibrant private sector. You can't.
Absolutely. But the private sector has benefited massively from the public sector and will continue to do so. Long-term, a strong public sector is always in the private sector's interests. They need each other - in practice if not in theory.
Yes - and the issue is, how do we compete globally with countries that devote a much smaller share of their national wealth to the public sector than we do? I don't know - but that's the 'elephant in the room' that all of the parties refuse to address - tinkering round the edges and seeing looming chasms of difference between their positions, when in truth, they're bickering over roundings in a global context.
You compete by being better in terms of quality and innovation.
I guess it depends on what your notion of society boils down to. For me - and I suspect most on the left - it is a consensual relationship based on the premise that its existence is about ensuring the best possible opportunities for the highest number of people. A race to the bottom in terms of wages, working conditions and job security does not deliver on that.
I owe so much to the public sector and hopefully my work in the private sector is paying some of that back.
I don't disagree with the bulk of what you wrote SO. But this sentence is odd. Your parents paid (I assume) tax. You did not owe anything to the public sector; you were getting what your parents had paid for.
The fact that you got what you got (as I did and probably around the same time) was as a result of our parents' decisions along with those of many others that collective provision was the best way to provide certain public goods. But it was paid for by our parents - who paid considerably higher taxes than now and earned less. It was not some sort of charity from the state for which we ought to be grateful. The state was doing what we wanted them to do.
And so we don't owe it anything. What you and I do - in the way that we pay our taxes - is require the state to continue providing and providing well those collective services for us, our children and our fellow citizens, much as we benefited and continue to benefit.
But I view the state as my servant not as some munificent master to whom I should be grateful and for whom I should work to show my gratitude. That strikes me as a rather feudal approach.
The tax my parents paid did not cover the costs of my education or healthcare or all the other benefits that I (and my brother and sister) received from the welfare state. It was the pooling of the resources of all taxpayers that achieved that - with the best off rightly paying the most. The state mandated it. When the wealthy were left to their own devices, there was no universal education or healthcare.
Agreed - though there was more healthcare and education pre- the Welfare State than Labour now like to pretend.
But the fact that we agreed that certain public goods should be provided collectively does not mean that we should feel grateful to the state. The state was doing what we asked them to do. I am not a supplicant of the state and I don't expect the state to demand that I feel gratitude to it. I expect and want the state to do its job well and when it doesn't I will criticise it. And when it does it well I praise it.
Cyclefree - ask yourself this. You complain about Labour not being on the side of aspirational, hard working, reasonably affluent and responsible people. Wouldn't those characteristics describe most senior people in the Labour party? Are they really likely to be so hostile towards their own kind?
Mr. Observer, Dyson recently complained that the EU was damaging innovation by excessive regulation, and that we should leave to escape German bullies.
High end stuff is great, the UK benefits by about £1bn a year from the excellent engineering which means we dominate F1, but we need (as it were) the Aldis and Lidls as well as the Waitroses of the economy.
A race to the bottom makes it sound like we have a choice. We can't pretend globalisation doesn't exist, and China isn't suddenly going to regress 30 years economically.
I see that the England bowling attack has once again proved toothless in anything other than English conditions. When Moeem Ali is our strike bowler we have problems.
Sri Lanka to get 280+ which England will be unable to chase is my prediction.
The growth of the public sector helped to improve the lives of millions and millions of people. I am no brighter than my grandparents were, but they did not have the welfare state to help them make the most of their talents that I did. Thanks to the state, I had a healthy childhood, got a free education until the age of 22, and was given the time and space to find a career that suited me. I then helped establish a company that now employs over 20 people in well remunerated jobs, and which pays a good whack in tax each year. I owe so much to the public sector and hopefully my work in the private sector is paying some of that back. My story is one that is repeated across the country.
In theory, we could do without a public sector. But history shows us very clearly that, in practice, to have a society in which the maximum number of people have the best opportunity to lead fulfilling, happy lives a strong public sector is absolutely necessary.
No-one suggested abolishing the public sector but some seem to think you can have one without a vibrant private sector. You can't.
Absolutely. But the private sector has benefited massively from the public sector and will continue to do so. Long-term, a strong public sector is always in the private sector's interests. They need each other - in practice if not in theory.
Yes - and the issue is, how do we compete globally with countries that devote a much smaller share of their national wealth to the public sector than we do? I don't know - but that's the 'elephant in the room' that all of the parties refuse to address - tinkering round the edges and seeing looming chasms of difference between their positions, when in truth, they're bickering over roundings in a global context.
You compete by being better in terms of quality and innovation.
I guess it depends on what your notion of society boils down to. For me - and I suspect most on the left - it is a consensual relationship based on the premise that its existence is about ensuring the best possible opportunities for the highest number of people. A race to the bottom in terms of wages, working conditions and job security does not deliver on that.
To be better in terms of quality and innovation we need the best education, prior to Mr Gove we were freefalling down the education ranks. Meanwhile, the top four are South Korea, Japan, Singapore and China. That last should be a massive wake up call for everyone.
Cyclefree - ask yourself this. You complain about Labour not being on the side of aspirational, hard working, reasonably affluent and responsible people. Wouldn't those characteristics describe most senior people in the Labour party? Are they really likely to be so hostile towards their own kind?
Tristram Hunt benefitted hugely from his private education, and is now sticking the boot into independent schools. Most of the the shadow cabinet were similarly educated. Labour's hypocritical senior ranks would be hostile to their own mothers if it got them into power.
I could well have this wrong as have only just heard Cleggs comments about EU benefits...
Isnt a bit ridiculous to say EU citizens are only entitled to in work benefits once they have paid into the system for a while, so as to pay for them? If someone is earning so little they are entitled to in work benefits, they will barely pay any tax anyway will they?
Yes but it sounds rational. What we would get is a reduction in the attraction of low paid jobs here to Ec citizens. That is the gain.
Of course it may or may not have to be applied to the young UK people, which also reduces the attraction of benefit kids etc etc.
I see that the England bowling attack has once again proved toothless in anything other than English conditions. When Moeem Ali is our strike bowler we have problems.
Sri Lanka to get 280+ which England will be unable to chase is my prediction.
Dibbly dobbly part timers - only 3 "frontline" bowlers - and 2 of them are Dernbach quality.
Cyclefree - ask yourself this. You complain about Labour not being on the side of aspirational, hard working, reasonably affluent and responsible people. Wouldn't those characteristics describe most senior people in the Labour party? Are they really likely to be so hostile towards their own kind?
Tristram Hunt benefitted hugely from his private education, and is now sticking the boot into independent schools. Labour's senior ranks would be hostile to their own mothers if it got them into power.
I suspect they would even eat babies....
The mystery though is - to do what? Why do they need this power so badly? They have not given the voters any clue how they would make our world so much better just by putting Ed Miliband in Downing Street.
I see that the England bowling attack has once again proved toothless in anything other than English conditions. When Moeem Ali is our strike bowler we have problems.
Sri Lanka to get 280+ which England will be unable to chase is my prediction.
Dibbly dobbly part timers - only 3 "frontline" bowlers - and 2 of them are Dernbach quality.
Probably the only time you will ever see "Dernbach" and "quality" in the same sentence...
Mr. Observer, Dyson recently complained that the EU was damaging innovation by excessive regulation, and that we should leave to escape German bullies.
It was more a complaint about how the regs were being rigged in favour of the Germans AND suppressing innovation which leads to uncompetitiveness in the global economy. What is sadly missing from our EC partners is any realisation amongst most of the Leaders that Europe's social costs and regulations have to be reduced. There is as yet no momentum for radical change outside of the UK.
I could well have this wrong as have only just heard Cleggs comments about EU benefits...
Isnt a bit ridiculous to say EU citizens are only entitled to in work benefits once they have paid into the system for a while, so as to pay for them? If someone is earning so little they are entitled to in work benefits, they will barely pay any tax anyway will they?
Yes but it sounds rational. What we would get is a reduction in the attraction of low paid jobs here to Ec citizens. That is the gain.
Of course it may or may not have to be applied to the young UK people, which also reduces the attraction of benefit kids etc etc.
Ah yes that does make sense, although I don't think it will make much difference. Economic migrants don't come here for the state benefits, they are just a bonus
The likes of Clegg, Cameron and Miliband have been saying for years that immigrants dont claim benefits so why make a song and dance about stopping them?
I see that the England bowling attack has once again proved toothless in anything other than English conditions. When Moeem Ali is our strike bowler we have problems.
Sri Lanka to get 280+ which England will be unable to chase is my prediction.
Dibbly dobbly part timers - only 3 "frontline" bowlers - and 2 of them are Dernbach quality.
And a top 6 who on the whole think a glance down to third man for a single is as good as it gets. I am appalled that Hales is not playing.
"CD13 whines that Gordon Brown attempted to divert blame on America for the financial crisis.."
Hardly a whine, it's a fact.
And another fact is that I've never voted Conservative in my life. I've voted Labour a lot longer than you have. I may have voted Labour when Michael Foot was leader but that doesn't mean I thought he was any good. I even voted for Wilson when he was happily blaming the gnomes of Zurich. You will vote Labour despite Ed, won't you?
Now, I tend to think that politicians are the real Lizards, beloved of Tapestry. In the mid-seventies, we were assured that the EC was just a trading organisation. But as Nick P has pointed out, it was always a cunning plot by those in the know for a political union. OK, he didn't put it in those words
Fair enough, I don't want to change the world so I might therefore be a bad person to some political geeks. I live in Merseyside and we haven't been affected much by recent immigration but an influx of young hard-working people might be good for our overall GDP.
You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, but the eggs don't always like the result. Telling them to shut up isn't an argument.
All politicians blame others for their mistakes. When you get old and cynical, like me, you'll agree.
I see that the England bowling attack has once again proved toothless in anything other than English conditions. When Moeem Ali is our strike bowler we have problems.
Sri Lanka to get 280+ which England will be unable to chase is my prediction.
Dibbly dobbly part timers - only 3 "frontline" bowlers - and 2 of them are Dernbach quality.
The part timers are doing better than the full timers.
I see that the England bowling attack has once again proved toothless in anything other than English conditions. When Moeem Ali is our strike bowler we have problems.
Sri Lanka to get 280+ which England will be unable to chase is my prediction.
Dibbly dobbly part timers - only 3 "frontline" bowlers - and 2 of them are Dernbach quality.
And a top 6 who on the whole think a glance down to third man for a single is as good as it gets. I am appalled that Hales is not playing.
Cyclefree - ask yourself this. You complain about Labour not being on the side of aspirational, hard working, reasonably affluent and responsible people. Wouldn't those characteristics describe most senior people in the Labour party? Are they really likely to be so hostile towards their own kind?
Tristram Hunt benefitted hugely from his private education, and is now sticking the boot into independent schools. Labour's senior ranks would be hostile to their own mothers if it got them into power.
I suspect they would even eat babies....
The mystery though is - to do what? Why do they need this power so badly? They have not given the voters any clue how they would make our world so much better just by putting Ed Miliband in Downing Street.
They'd be fighting the Tories for them. The kippers and greens are very disadvantaged in the baby-eating stakes, being limited to ethnic British and vegan babies respectively.
Comments
With no real policies apart from spending, there will be economic problems, and his response will be the Animal Farm one.
Gordon blamed America, Ed will blame his own Farmer Jones - the financial markets or the Gnomes of Zurich, those rich bankers who he hasn't , unlike Blair, bothered to ingratiate himself with.
With a crisis looming, he will go to the country with a choice. Either choose me, fair Ed, the man on your side, or those shadowy lizard people who lurk at the bottom of your garden.
Obviously, he'll wrap it up in gobbledy-gook, but his acolytes will simplify the message a little.
As private Fraser says ... "We're doomed, I tell ye, doomed."
The article demonstrates one of the most pernicious parts of modern equality/human rights laws, namely that governments must not differentiate between their own citizens and foreign nationals.
Working through that lot... it seems particularly good for Irish citizens here as they enjoy both their commonwealth and EU rights.
Growth up q/q 0.7% unrevised. But the detail shows investment falling and the trade deficit widening again.
Whomsoever takes over from this chump has got an almost impossible task wrestling the economy away from Tory fantasy back to some sort of reality.
2019 is the 90th anniversary of the 1929 crash.
2018 is the 10th anniversary of the 2008 crash.
2018 is the 4th anniversary of the 2014 correction of the Bull Market following th2 2008 crash.
I would not want to hold any stocks after mid 2018.
Aren't we meant to be building a side for the World Cup in Aus/NZ?
Clearly because Ed Bland has an MSc he knows where the magic money trees grow!
A few posts up @TGOHF whines that the eurozone is hampering useless George's economic management.
Tory consistency.
Ozzy is doing a good job buying us borrowed time to sort out deeper more fundamental economic malaises (productivity, deficit, competitiveness) whilst simultaneously failing to address those deeper issues.
I thought the driving force behind all decisions was to protect ECB members in their comfortable existence. Winning? An irrelevance.
How else can you explain decisions over the past four years?
(If accountability for results was applied, then they would all have been fired)
He really needs to go.
I believe Ozzy would be doing the right stuff if he had a blank sheet, but he doesn't. It's a coalition and the electorate aren't ready for their medicine. The alternative is Ed n Ed - say no more. (Shudders)
I may not expect Labour to do much for me because there are poorer people than me who should be the priority but I feel strongly that Labour simply neither like nor respect people like me and that some Labour people view people like me with a certain contempt.
It is one - important - reason why I cannot bring myself to vote for the current Labour party even though in the past I have and despite the fact that I admire some past and present Labour politicians. I just don't think that Labour values the largely silent getting on with life/ trying to do the right thing classes, whether they're working/middle or upper class.
Depressingly I fully expect so more money to be pissed away in the Autumn Statement and the Budget to try and buy some votes given the current state of the polls.
In theory, we could do without a public sector. But history shows us very clearly that, in practice, to have a society in which the maximum number of people have the best opportunity to lead fulfilling, happy lives a strong public sector is absolutely necessary.
I think there is a specific line in the treaty that states that it is up to individual countries to decide who can vote in national elections (said line was much quoted at the time of the prisoner debate, although the was ECJ, rather than EU related). As it is a treaty item, it would require the agreement of all 27 members of the EU to change to allow foreign nationals to vote in the UK.
More seriously the bulk of investors live all over the UK while their pension funds do the investing. Even most bank managers don't live in London and many stockbrokers, etc., commute from outside the city.
We don't require McDonalds to charge the same as the Savoy Grill, or Lada the same as Mercedes. If you live on a remote island you should surely expect to pay more to get stuff delivered to you...?
"...it is not a charity. You are all paying for it"
Chris Hopson CEO FTN (@ChrisCEOHopson)
20/11/2014 13:44
Look what my mum found - we think it was given to my dad when he left the Navy in 1948. Love the words at the bottom! pic.twitter.com/C1FzC132EX
More infrastructure spending on Day 1 in office when the world was melting around him and perfectly sensible countries were being marked down as "near-junk" (own currency or not)? I don't buy the currency-issuing protective shield.
Cut more? You are on a political betting site and if this is your answer you show your lack of insight into how politics really works (is it right? Of course not; is it the only option? for sure).
Cut less? Shurely not...
WHAT!!???
The fact that you got what you got (as I did and probably around the same time) was as a result of our parents' decisions along with those of many others that collective provision was the best way to provide certain public goods. But it was paid for by our parents - who paid considerably higher taxes than now and earned less. It was not some sort of charity from the state for which we ought to be grateful. The state was doing what we wanted them to do.
And so we don't owe it anything. What you and I do - in the way that we pay our taxes - is require the state to continue providing and providing well those collective services for us, our children and our fellow citizens, much as we benefited and continue to benefit.
But I view the state as my servant not as some munificent master to whom I should be grateful and for whom I should work to show my gratitude. That strikes me as a rather feudal approach.
I don't think the portrayal of all Tories as one-eyed toffs is right either, by the way. Most MPs on both sides are pretty keen to help a broad spectrum - the differences are in emphasis and priority rather than basic ambition.
It worked. The US is the fastest growing economy in the western world and has a budget deficit below 3% of GDP.
Wake up rightwingers.
Not easy to fix trade deficits and keep wages rising.
A lot of particularly Asia economies can actually get away with being low wage and have a reasonable standard of living because the taxes are so low. In the UK was pay 40% of GDP in taxes, in a lot of South East Asia its less than 15%
My concern medium to long term is that the UK is woefully uncompetitive with Asia, and there is no sign of that gap coming close to closing, we will eventually be forced to swallow a 20-30% drop in living standard to compete, much of that will come at the expense of the public sector. Singapore pays 14.2% of GDP as Tax
We need to be moving the other way: stripping Commonwealth citizens of getting the vote here. It's a completely outdated concept, and most of the Commonwealth has moved with the time and dropped it. It's about time we did.
I think, rather, that we would have been lumped in to the "profligate" bucket and penalised accordingly.
IMO GO was right immediately to talk the talk (he transparently didn't walk the walk) of austerity to reassure the capital markets and then embark upon an infrastructure spending plan.
As you will also remember, at the time it was pretty scary with no one being able to say for sure which would be the next "target".
We are doing worse than the US maybe, but a _lot_ better than our EU friends and, all things considered, that is where the comparison should be made.
Not an easy game being chancellor with no money.
I am half expecting a "terrorist" attack on some Saudi export/production facilities, but unsure who will be actually funding this false flag operation. (Back off, Tap, this is MY tinfoil!)
Oil magnate Roy Hobbs said: “Scotland is both an Eden and a trap. Barbados is worthless after an afternoon on the beach at Broughty Ferry and once you’ve seen Glasgow, how could New York ever satisfy?"
'The Cult of Eck' was often mentioned here in jest; it looks as if it's reality now.
I expect they'll be conducting mass weddings and baptisms next, just like the Moonies.
The value now should be in backing the SNP to be winning the seats that are their 25th, 26th etc. best prospects, which are still odds against, but they would probably have to win to be the biggest party.
But it is based on what I hear Labour politicians, including my own MP - when she has responded to concerns I have raised, saying. And I have a regard for some Labour politicians so I am aware that not all think in that way. But that is the impression that EdM's Labour party have given me for some time now and while it may be unfair on you (though I am not one of your potential constituents) and others in your party, it will affect how I vote.
I think it is something which Labour need to think harder about it. There is a very real danger in my view that they are seen as not being on the side of those trying to do the right thing. They risk being seen as a party which puts people in certain groups and labels them as "bad" or "good" and targets them accordingly. And that claims that it has copyright over the concept of "fairness" when it strikes me that a lot of their policies are anything but fair.
It's the mirror image of the way the Tories are seen as not on the side of the ordinary person, unfair as that may be.
BTW you do realise that we come a very close second to the US on growth - how's Ed's m8's France doing?
Isnt a bit ridiculous to say EU citizens are only entitled to in work benefits once they have paid into the system for a while, so as to pay for them? If someone is earning so little they are entitled to in work benefits, they will barely pay any tax anyway will they?
I expect they'll be conducting mass weddings and baptisms next, just like the Moonies.
We could call them the Moanies.....
I guess it depends on what your notion of society boils down to. For me - and I suspect most on the left - it is a consensual relationship based on the premise that its existence is about ensuring the best possible opportunities for the highest number of people. A race to the bottom in terms of wages, working conditions and job security does not deliver on that.
But the fact that we agreed that certain public goods should be provided collectively does not mean that we should feel grateful to the state. The state was doing what we asked them to do. I am not a supplicant of the state and I don't expect the state to demand that I feel gratitude to it. I expect and want the state to do its job well and when it doesn't I will criticise it. And when it does it well I praise it.
High end stuff is great, the UK benefits by about £1bn a year from the excellent engineering which means we dominate F1, but we need (as it were) the Aldis and Lidls as well as the Waitroses of the economy.
A race to the bottom makes it sound like we have a choice. We can't pretend globalisation doesn't exist, and China isn't suddenly going to regress 30 years economically.
https://twitter.com/KatyClarkMP/status/535161672374448130
Sri Lanka to get 280+ which England will be unable to chase is my prediction.
"Let's get rid of the nuclear deterrent to temporarily bolster our party's political standing!"
Sounds like a sensible way to formulate Defence policy...
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/spending_chart_1692_2010UKp_14c1li011mcn_F0t_UK_Public_Spending_As_Percent_Of_GDP
Clear bottom left / top right trend with big spikes for Napoleonic wars / WW1 / WW2.
Of course it may or may not have to be applied to the young UK people, which also reduces the attraction of benefit kids etc etc.
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/spending_chart_1930_2014UKp_14c1li011mcn_F0t_UK_Public_Spending_As_Percent_Of_GDP
The mystery though is - to do what? Why do they need this power so badly? They have not given the voters any clue how they would make our world so much better just by putting Ed Miliband in Downing Street.
If you are Labour or UKIP voter then you are more inclined to believe Miliband or Farage that there is no recovery for you.
So cause and effect. Which is which?
The likes of Clegg, Cameron and Miliband have been saying for years that immigrants dont claim benefits so why make a song and dance about stopping them?
"CD13 whines that Gordon Brown attempted to divert blame on America for the financial crisis.."
Hardly a whine, it's a fact.
And another fact is that I've never voted Conservative in my life. I've voted Labour a lot longer than you have. I may have voted Labour when Michael Foot was leader but that doesn't mean I thought he was any good. I even voted for Wilson when he was happily blaming the gnomes of Zurich. You will vote Labour despite Ed, won't you?
Now, I tend to think that politicians are the real Lizards, beloved of Tapestry. In the mid-seventies, we were assured that the EC was just a trading organisation. But as Nick P has pointed out, it was always a cunning plot by those in the know for a political union. OK, he didn't put it in those words
Fair enough, I don't want to change the world so I might therefore be a bad person to some political geeks. I live in Merseyside and we haven't been affected much by recent immigration but an influx of young hard-working people might be good for our overall GDP.
You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, but the eggs don't always like the result. Telling them to shut up isn't an argument.
All politicians blame others for their mistakes. When you get old and cynical, like me, you'll agree.