SO The economy is now growing, I agree Thatcher did make some mistakes, and one was not getting replacement industry for ex mining communities, though she did promote industrial parks and investment from the likes of Nissan and Toyota which has brought some jobs. However, the general trend to a service sector rather than mass manufacturing/primary industry economy would have occurred regardless of Thatcher
I agree. The decline of heavy industry in the UK was inevitable - more or less - and certainly was not Thatcher's fault. But in my view it could have been handled a whole lot better.
MalcolmG Many of the richest expat Scots, Sir Sean Connery, Alan Cumming, Andy Murray, Sir Brian Cox etc were all Yes supporters
Not many London establishment lackeys among that list
A lot of greedy hypocrites though. I'll exclude Andy Murray (though I'm not a fan - personality of a brick), because he has opened a hotel, helping his community, but the rest want everyone else to cover themselves in wode and charge south whilst they watch from the Bahamas.
Bollocks, they are entitled to their opinions , Connery for one never uttered a word during the campaign and his charity has donated plenty to help in Scotland. Typical little englander viewpoint.
Mr. G, it certainly is brighter than expected in Yorkshire.
In angry news, I see some people think the equivalent to a Scottish Parliament for England is glorified councils and ridiculous city-regions. Surprised to read Dan Hannan seems to agree, On top of all that there are supplementary federal grants which the federal government makes to the 'poor' Länder to complement financial equalisation.
Good luck to UKIP in sorting that out.... ' ''The lawsuit before the court is an act of political self-defense," said Volker Bouffier, the premier of the German state Hessen. Between 1995 and 2007, Bouffier's state of 6 million was the loser in Germany's federal equalization system. Over that period of time, Hessen's state coffers were depleted by a net sum of 35.4 billion euros ($46.1 billion)' ' "It can't be that 10 percent of our budget ends up in other states, which then pay for things we ourselves can't afford," ' http://www.dw.de/german-states-oppose-stupid-wealth-transfers/a-16640386 ...never mind drawing up the totally arbitry regions (not least when the choice of a region's boundary dictates, as we see above, who pays how much to who.
Is it such a clever kipper idea?? Especially when it balkanises England. Or is it really just a typical gimmick which solves nothing, improves nothing and creates other problems. It all sounds a bit like socialists spending other people's money to me. But then again Farage's policy ideas never seem to last too long.
"Or is it really just a typical gimmick which solves nothing, improves nothing and creates other problems."
Excellent discussion on the Daily Politics pointing out what I've been widely mocked for saying on this board: London is the greatest city on Earth if you're a "baby boomer that's lucked out and is sitting on a great pile of money", in their expert's words. If you're not, it's a place of great economic struggle, poverty and psychological anxiety. Again, this is one of the things that our social segregation allows the economically successful to be completely out of touch.
Interesting description from Socrates of the typical UKIP voter. A bit of a caricature and the description gives them a nobility that I'm sure a lot of us would argue with but even if we accept these noble sons and daughters of toil to be what Socrates sees them to be I'd still have a problem. Why do we allow them to demand the closed shop Thatcher and her party denied to the unions? I don't remember any Tory leader going to the barricades for the miners right to keep out competition because all they wanted was to do right by their kids. I certainly don't remember any Tory making the kind of speech Cameron made the other day in support of these Honest Johns at the expense of all us consumers who have patently benefitted from the intelligent foreign labour we have recently been importing from Europe
But his description gives them no 'nobility', it merely humanises them. The reason you object to the terms of the description is because your political grouping despises these people as grotty Daily Mail reading bigots, and they're viciously lampooned by the likes of J K Rowling and Ruth Rendell. They hate them because they fear them -if everyone were like them, there would be no state dependency.
Interesting description from Socrates of the typical UKIP voter. A bit of a caricature and the description gives them a nobility that I'm sure a lot of us would argue with but even if we accept these noble sons and daughters of toil to be what Socrates sees them to be I'd still have a problem. Why do we allow them to demand the closed shop Thatcher and her party denied to the unions? I don't remember any Tory leader going to the barricades for the miners right to keep out competition because all they wanted was to do right by their kids. I certainly don't remember any Tory making the kind of speech Cameron made the other day in support of these Honest Johns at the expense of all us consumers who have patently benefitted from the intelligent foreign labour we have recently been importing from Europe
"Why do we allow them to demand ..."
Why shouldn't people be allowed to demand anything they like?
"all us consumers who have patently benefitted from the intelligent foreign labour we have recently been importing from Europe"
Careful with "imported" in terms of people.. OGH and @SouthamObserver go crazy at the use of that word when referring to human beings.
The point you miss is that consumers haven't benefitted from the use of intelligent foreign labour.. things cost more than they used to even though the people who work for the companies are paid the same (or less)
An influx of Eastern European electricians and plumbers has meant the wages of plumbers and electricians has stagnated, but their bosses profit margins have increased big time.
The coffee in Pattisire Valerie is still expensive, despite the low rates of pay for the immigrant waitresses
So the consumer doesn't benefit, neither does the worker.
Profit margins have improved somewhat.
But more typically it's taxes/obligatory payments that have gone up - that's what the government doesn't want to tell us (whether it's rates, taxes, social obligations, pension contributions, whatever) they all have to come out of the revenues that a company generates.
For instance, people complain that petrol prices haven't come down very much (c. 20p from 138p to 120p). However, of the 138p, from memory around 85p is tax, so the fall in petrol prices related to the *oil companies* is about 18p/55p or pretty close to the 1/3 fall in oil prices in GBp terms.
MalcolmG Many of the richest expat Scots, Sir Sean Connery, Alan Cumming, Andy Murray, Sir Brian Cox etc were all Yes supporters
Not many London establishment lackeys among that list
A lot of greedy hypocrites though. I'll exclude Andy Murray (though I'm not a fan - personality of a brick), because he has opened a hotel, helping his community, but the rest want everyone else to cover themselves in wode and charge south whilst they watch from the Bahamas.
Bollocks, they are entitled to their opinions , Connery for one never uttered a word during the campaign and his charity has donated plenty to help in Scotland. Typical little englander viewpoint.
Of course he didn't -his views would have been utterly ridiculed, it was a wise decision by the (very good) Yes campaign.
The point you miss is that consumers haven't benefitted from the use of intelligent foreign labour.. things cost more than they used to even though the people who work for the companies are paid the same (or less)
An influx of Eastern European electricians and plumbers has meant the wages of plumbers and electricians has stagnated, but their bosses profit margins have increased big time.
Say we accept your claim about prices and wages, who's getting the saving when the plumbers and electricians are self-employed?
Most are, they are self employed but rely on a kind of zero hours contract arrangement with the companies who get the big jobs.
So it is the boss of the company that gets the saving
They top up their wages if they can get private jobs where they can charge the old rate, but the bread and butter wages have stagnated
Interesting description from Socrates of the typical UKIP voter. A bit of a caricature and the description gives them a nobility that I'm sure a lot of us would argue with but even if we accept these noble sons and daughters of toil to be what Socrates sees them to be I'd still have a problem. Why do we allow them to demand the closed shop Thatcher and her party denied to the unions? I don't remember any Tory leader going to the barricades for the miners right to keep out competition because all they wanted was to do right by their kids. I certainly don't remember any Tory making the kind of speech Cameron made the other day in support of these Honest Johns at the expense of all us consumers who have patently benefitted from the intelligent foreign labour we have recently been importing from Europe
But his description gives them no 'nobility', it merely humanises them. The reason you object to the terms of the description is because your political grouping despises these people as grotty Daily Mail reading bigots, and they're viciously lampooned by the likes of J K Rowling and Ruth Rendell. They hate them because they fear them -if everyone were like them, there would be no state dependency.
Have just calculated the Medians for the 2010sVIs.
Results are for November 2014 (with January 2014 in brackets).
Cons Retention: 74 (76) Cons to LAB: 3 (5) Cons to LD: 1 (1) Cons to UKIP: 19 (17) Cons to Green: 1 (0)
LAB Retention: 77 (85) LAB to Cons: 5 (4) LAB to LD: 1 (2) LAB to UKIP: 8 (5) LAB to Green: 4 (1)
LD Retention: 27 (35) LD to Cons: 13 (12) LD to LAB: 29 (34) LD to UKIP: 13 (9) LD to Green: 13 (5)
Scottish Subsample VI - not 2010
SNP: 41 for November & October LAB: 25 (27 in October).
Labour Lead: GB
6 in January, 1 in November
What this shows is the huge dissatisfaction with the main parties. To win a majority, either party will need to get back some of the support it has lost. The comfort for the Tories is that it has lost a fifth of its support to UKIP and has a chance to get some of that back.
What it shows is the toxicity of Ed Miliband killing Labour's 35% strategy. So much for hanging on to the 2010 voters and adding on the LibDems to get Ed into Downing Street. January to November, the Tories have lost 2%, Labour 8%.
The Tories have clawed back 1% of their supporters going to Labour - whilst Labour has lost another 1% to the Tories. These now show a net transfer of 2010 voters going from Labour to the Conservatives. Which is a fascinating direction of travel for the mass of Labour/Tory marginals next May.
As is the net loss of LibDem voters. It was a net 22% differential between Labour/Tories - that is now down to 16%. Still very handy for Labour, but a worrying fall off for them.
What matters is not votes but seats. National vote shares are almost totally irrelevant when you've got FPTP in 650 individual seats.
So the LDs can be down to 6% in some online panel polls yet in the same week we get seat polling that points to them securing 30+ in May.
UKIP can be in late teens or low 20s yet there are precious few seats where they are ahead.
It's going to be a very interesting test of the value of constituency polling and incumbency.
My instinct is that both of the latter are over-rated. But I don't recall a case where the difference between the national polls and the apparent seat retention due to Lib Dem cockroach (TM Penny Mordaunt) tendencies
Interesting description from Socrates of the typical UKIP voter. A bit of a caricature and the description gives them a nobility that I'm sure a lot of us would argue with but even if we accept these noble sons and daughters of toil to be what Socrates sees them to be I'd still have a problem. Why do we allow them to demand the closed shop Thatcher and her party denied to the unions? I don't remember any Tory leader going to the barricades for the miners right to keep out competition because all they wanted was to do right by their kids. I certainly don't remember any Tory making the kind of speech Cameron made the other day in support of these Honest Johns at the expense of all us consumers who have patently benefitted from the intelligent foreign labour we have recently been importing from Europe
But his description gives them no 'nobility', it merely humanises them. The reason you object to the terms of the description is because your political grouping despises these people as grotty Daily Mail reading bigots, and they're viciously lampooned by the likes of J K Rowling and Ruth Rendell. They hate them because they fear them -if everyone were like them, there would be no state dependency.
Great insight. It's all JK Rowling's fault.
No doubt Ed will go big on ending Hogwarts' tax breaks.
Interesting description from Socrates of the typical UKIP voter. A bit of a caricature and the description gives them a nobility that I'm sure a lot of us would argue with but even if we accept these noble sons and daughters of toil to be what Socrates sees them to be I'd still have a problem. Why do we allow them to demand the closed shop Thatcher and her party denied to the unions? I don't remember any Tory leader going to the barricades for the miners right to keep out competition because all they wanted was to do right by their kids. I certainly don't remember any Tory making the kind of speech Cameron made the other day in support of these Honest Johns at the expense of all us consumers who have patently benefitted from the intelligent foreign labour we have recently been importing from Europe
You are right. It was right not to subsidise our dying ancient industries; the people who object to polish plumbers were happy to benefit from polish open cast coal. Likewise the selfish nimbys who object to railways were happy to benefit from the desicration of our landscape in places like Lancashire and South Wales which gave them the coal for their electricity.
However Cameron has struck the right balance in saying people should have jobs to come here to and not have automatic rights to benefits. If we were in the ever closing union of the Eurozone it might nbe different but we are not and never will be - so the logic for different rules is easy to see.
Have just calculated the Medians for the 2010sVIs.
Results are for November 2014 (with January 2014 in brackets).
Cons Retention: 74 (76) Cons to LAB: 3 (5) Cons to LD: 1 (1) Cons to UKIP: 19 (17) Cons to Green: 1 (0)
LAB Retention: 77 (85) LAB to Cons: 5 (4) LAB to LD: 1 (2) LAB to UKIP: 8 (5) LAB to Green: 4 (1)
LD Retention: 27 (35) LD to Cons: 13 (12) LD to LAB: 29 (34) LD to UKIP: 13 (9) LD to Green: 13 (5)
Scottish Subsample VI - not 2010
SNP: 41 for November & October LAB: 25 (27 in October).
Labour Lead: GB
6 in January, 1 in November
What this shows is the huge dissatisfaction with the main parties. To win a majority, either party will need to get back some of the support it has lost. The comfort for the Tories is that it has lost a fifth of its support to UKIP and has a chance to get some of that back.
What it shows is the toxicity of Ed Miliband killing Labour's 35% strategy. So much for hanging on to the 2010 voters and adding on the LibDems to get Ed into Downing Street. January to November, the Tories have lost 2%, Labour 8%.
The Tories have clawed back 1% of their supporters going to Labour - whilst Labour has lost another 1% to the Tories. These now show a net transfer of 2010 voters going from Labour to the Conservatives. Which is a fascinating direction of travel for the mass of Labour/Tory marginals next May.
As is the net loss of LibDem voters. It was a net 22% differential between Labour/Tories - that is now down to 16%. Still very handy for Labour, but a worrying fall off for them.
What matters is not votes but seats. National vote shares are almost totally irrelevant when you've got FPTP in 650 individual seats.
So the LDs can be down to 6% in some online panel polls yet in the same week we get seat polling that points to them securing 30+ in May.
UKIP can be in late teens or low 20s yet there are precious few seats where they are ahead.
A crucial point made by OGH and something PBers should remind themselves of regularly as the general election looms.
Kippers should be especially wary of the Alliance performance in 1983 - 25% returned only 23 MP's of which few were non incumbents. Hundreds of second places but few bums on the benches.
Most Kippers would have settled for 2 seats in May 2015 had you asked them 18 months ago... and if we get 16-17% of the vote and 3-4 seats I would be well pleased
"The archetypal Ukiper is a successful plumber, comfortable retiree or construction foreman, not an unemployed, deskilled casualty of globalisation. They are ‘left out’ of the status elite, and therefore resentful, but are not left behind by the modern economy".
I could not have written it better. The UKIPman is the plumber who comes to your house, does his job well, moaning against the whole world and then says he will cut out the VAT if you pay cash !
I would imagine 25% of bed and breakfast owners are also UKIP supporters. If theoretically UKIP ever came to power it would not be easy to pass laws to prefer tham. Maybe, abolish income tax or lower it for "working" self-employed ! Otherwise, they will still moan !
The answer to the WWC dilemma is simple. Most of them were already voting Conservative. In the past, they were called the Essex Man.
Interesting description from Socrates of the typical UKIP voter. A bit of a caricature and the description gives them a nobility that I'm sure a lot of us would argue with but even if we accept these noble sons and daughters of toil to be what Socrates sees them to be I'd still have a problem. Why do we allow them to demand the closed shop Thatcher and her party denied to the unions? I don't remember any Tory leader going to the barricades for the miners right to keep out competition because all they wanted was to do right by their kids. I certainly don't remember any Tory making the kind of speech Cameron made the other day in support of these Honest Johns at the expense of all us consumers who have patently benefitted from the intelligent foreign labour we have recently been importing from Europe
You are right. It was right not to subsidise our dying ancient industries; the people who object to polish plumbers were happy to benefit from polish open cast coal. Likewise the selfish nimbys who object to railways were happy to benefit from the desicration of our landscape in places like Lancashire and South Wales which gave them the coal for their electricity.
However Cameron has struck the right balance in saying people should have jobs to come here to and not have automatic rights to benefits. If we were in the ever closing union of the Eurozone it might nbe different but we are not and never will be - so the logic for different rules is easy to see.
You are right. It was right not to subsidise our dying ancient industries
for once we agree, we should have let the banks go under.
Interesting description from Socrates of the typical UKIP voter. A bit of a caricature and the description gives them a nobility that I'm sure a lot of us would argue with but even if we accept these noble sons and daughters of toil to be what Socrates sees them to be I'd still have a problem. Why do we allow them to demand the closed shop Thatcher and her party denied to the unions?
Because the British governments should take responsibility for the welfare of its own citizens over that of foreign citizens, in a way it shouldn't take responsibility for the welfare of union members over non-union members.
The welfare of foreign citizens isn't even part of Roger's argument. You're advocating a closed shop to keep British production expensive, which you hope will be to the benefit of British workers, and (except for mysterious Isam economics) is going to be at the expense of British consumers. This is exactly what Thatcher thought consumers shouldn't have stump up for to benefit miners or workers in other unionized industries.
The point you miss is that consumers haven't benefitted from the use of intelligent foreign labour.. things cost more than they used to even though the people who work for the companies are paid the same (or less)
An influx of Eastern European electricians and plumbers has meant the wages of plumbers and electricians has stagnated, but their bosses profit margins have increased big time.
Say we accept your claim about prices and wages, who's getting the saving when the plumbers and electricians are self-employed?
Most are, they are self employed but rely on a kind of zero hours contract arrangement with the companies who get the big jobs.
So it is the boss of the company that gets the saving
They top up their wages if they can get private jobs where they can charge the old rate, but the bread and butter wages have stagnated
But with more labour supply aren't there more companies bidding for the big work? And if that is the case, don't they have to be bidding at lower prices? The supermarkets, for example, have been able to use the availability of cheap foreign labour (and produce) to drive down the prices they pay farmers. Is there any evidence that the same kind of thing is not happening elsewhere?
What a great description. I've often described UKIP on here as "working class and lower middle class". They are people that have worked hard, played by the rules and in any fair society should be doing well in life. But instead they're being undercut by the system. Their views are considered illegitimate and they're smeared for them. Their pay is constantly undercut by immigration, yet won't be helped by a minimum wage increase. They aspire for themselves and their children to get on the housing ladder through their own hard work, yet overcrowding means prices keeps on rising out of their reach. They work long enough hours that it's not easy to a GP appointment, yet when they phone up it's very hard to get in, and when they do they have to sit in a waiting room for ages - something they don't have time for. They want their kids to do well in education, but would never be able to pay for private schools or tutors, and have to deal with much of their resources going on ESL kids needing extra help, and their children are held back by most kids in their class not speaking English well. And, without huge amounts of their own private money, they depend on the support network of an integrated local community that looks after each other, but immigration has broken this down.
Racist Socrates, that's the word you are missing.
Thanks again for displaying the sheer contempt of regular British people held by people of your background.
I am not showing contempt. I am just calling it as it is, just google UKIP and racist or racist comments.. there is a lot to choose from.
Have just calculated the Medians for the 2010sVIs.
Results are for November 2014 (with January 2014 in brackets).
Cons Retention: 74 (76) Cons to LAB: 3 (5) Cons to LD: 1 (1) Cons to UKIP: 19 (17) Cons to Green: 1 (0)
LAB Retention: 77 (85) LAB to Cons: 5 (4) LAB to LD: 1 (2) LAB to UKIP: 8 (5) LAB to Green: 4 (1)
LD Retention: 27 (35) LD to Cons: 13 (12) LD to LAB: 29 (34) LD to UKIP: 13 (9) LD to Green: 13 (5)
Scottish Subsample VI - not 2010
SNP: 41 for November & October LAB: 25 (27 in October).
Labour Lead: GB
6 in January, 1 in November
What this shows is the huge dissatisfaction with the main parties. To win a majority, either party will need to get back some of the support it has lost. The comfort for the Tories is that it has lost a fifth of its support to UKIP and has a chance to get some of that back.
What it shows is the toxicity of Ed Miliband killing Labour's 35% strategy. So much for hanging on to the 2010 voters and adding on the LibDems to get Ed into Downing Street. January to November, the Tories have lost 2%, Labour 8%.
The Tories have clawed back 1% of their supporters going to Labour - whilst Labour has lost another 1% to the Tories. These now show a net transfer of 2010 voters going from Labour to the Conservatives. Which is a fascinating direction of travel for the mass of Labour/Tory marginals next May.
As is the net loss of LibDem voters. It was a net 22% differential between Labour/Tories - that is now down to 16%. Still very handy for Labour, but a worrying fall off for them.
What matters is not votes but seats. National vote shares are almost totally irrelevant when you've got FPTP in 650 individual seats.
So the LDs can be down to 6% in some online panel polls yet in the same week we get seat polling that points to them securing 30+ in May.
UKIP can be in late teens or low 20s yet there are precious few seats where they are ahead.
It's going to be a very interesting test of the value of constituency polling and incumbency.
My instinct is that both of the latter are over-rated. But I don't recall a case where the difference between the national polls and the apparent seat retention due to Lib Dem cockroach (TM Penny Mordaunt) tendencies
I agree, but we'll find out come May.
(I'm hoping Ms Mordaunt will be a Good Egg and lose to UKIP. 33-1!)
SO The economy is now growing, I agree Thatcher did make some mistakes, and one was not getting replacement industry for ex mining communities, though she did promote industrial parks and investment from the likes of Nissan and Toyota which has brought some jobs. However, the general trend to a service sector rather than mass manufacturing/primary industry economy would have occurred regardless of Thatcher
In 2008 (wiki) there were 180,000 employees in automobile manufacturing and 640,000 in supply, retail and servicing.
A lot of those are down to Nissan and Honda proving that the UK workforce has the skills and capabilities to make volume manufacturing profitable (with the right management and systems).
I think "some jobs" is rather unfair to Thatcher's achievement.
Have just calculated the Medians for the 2010sVIs.
Results are for November 2014 (with January 2014 in brackets).
Cons Retention: 74 (76) Cons to LAB: 3 (5) Cons to LD: 1 (1) Cons to UKIP: 19 (17) Cons to Green: 1 (0)
LAB Retention: 77 (85) LAB to Cons: 5 (4) LAB to LD: 1 (2) LAB to UKIP: 8 (5) LAB to Green: 4 (1)
LD Retention: 27 (35) LD to Cons: 13 (12) LD to LAB: 29 (34) LD to UKIP: 13 (9) LD to Green: 13 (5)
Scottish Subsample VI - not 2010
SNP: 41 for November & October LAB: 25 (27 in October).
Labour Lead: GB
6 in January, 1 in November
What this shows is the huge dissatisfaction with the main parties. To win a majority, either party will need to get back some of the support it has lost. The comfort for the Tories is that it has lost a fifth of its support to UKIP and has a chance to get some of that back.
What it shows is the toxicity of Ed Miliband killing Labour's 35% strategy. So much for hanging on to the 2010 voters and adding on the LibDems to get Ed into Downing Street. January to November, the Tories have lost 2%, Labour 8%.
The Tories have clawed back 1% of their supporters going to Labour - whilst Labour has lost another 1% to the Tories. These now show a net transfer of 2010 voters going from Labour to the Conservatives. Which is a fascinating direction of travel for the mass of Labour/Tory marginals next May.
As is the net loss of LibDem voters. It was a net 22% differential between Labour/Tories - that is now down to 16%. Still very handy for Labour, but a worrying fall off for them.
What matters is not votes but seats. National vote shares are almost totally irrelevant when you've got FPTP in 650 individual seats.
So the LDs can be down to 6% in some online panel polls yet in the same week we get seat polling that points to them securing 30+ in May.
UKIP can be in late teens or low 20s yet there are precious few seats where they are ahead.
A crucial point made by OGH and something PBers should remind themselves of regularly as the general election looms.
Kippers should be especially wary of the Alliance performance in 1983 - 25% returned only 23 MP's of which few were non incumbents. Hundreds of second places but few bums on the benches.
Don't worry ! The serial moaners will still moan that the election was "stolen" from them.
As a Labour supporter, I am beginning to like FPTP [ though, of course, it is totally indefensible ]. All we need is for the Labour vote to recover to something like 34% in Scotland.
The point you miss is that consumers haven't benefitted from the use of intelligent foreign labour.. things cost more than they used to even though the people who work for the companies are paid the same (or less)
An influx of Eastern European electricians and plumbers has meant the wages of plumbers and electricians has stagnated, but their bosses profit margins have increased big time.
Say we accept your claim about prices and wages, who's getting the saving when the plumbers and electricians are self-employed?
Most are, they are self employed but rely on a kind of zero hours contract arrangement with the companies who get the big jobs.
So it is the boss of the company that gets the saving
They top up their wages if they can get private jobs where they can charge the old rate, but the bread and butter wages have stagnated
Let me make this as clear as I can. Somebody lives in a house. They need some plumbing done. They hire a plumber. Who's getting the saving?
The point you miss is that consumers haven't benefitted from the use of intelligent foreign labour.. things cost more than they used to even though the people who work for the companies are paid the same (or less)
An influx of Eastern European electricians and plumbers has meant the wages of plumbers and electricians has stagnated, but their bosses profit margins have increased big time.
Say we accept your claim about prices and wages, who's getting the saving when the plumbers and electricians are self-employed?
Most are, they are self employed but rely on a kind of zero hours contract arrangement with the companies who get the big jobs.
So it is the boss of the company that gets the saving
They top up their wages if they can get private jobs where they can charge the old rate, but the bread and butter wages have stagnated
But with more labour supply aren't there more companies bidding for the big work? And if that is the case, don't they have to be bidding at lower prices? The supermarkets, for example, have been able to use the availability of cheap foreign labour (and produce) to drive down the prices they pay farmers. Is there any evidence that the same kind of thing is not happening elsewhere?
doesn't that rather ignore that in driving down prices, you're driving down income, so more people become benefit dependent ? When they're benefit dependent taxes have to rise to pay for them so the consumer "saving" probably isn't. All we're discussing is do you pay the workman his full price or do you pay the difference to HMG ?
Have just calculated the Medians for the 2010sVIs.
Results are for November 2014 (with January 2014 in brackets).
Cons Retention: 74 (76) Cons to LAB: 3 (5) Cons to LD: 1 (1) Cons to UKIP: 19 (17) Cons to Green: 1 (0)
LAB Retention: 77 (85) LAB to Cons: 5 (4) LAB to LD: 1 (2) LAB to UKIP: 8 (5) LAB to Green: 4 (1)
LD Retention: 27 (35) LD to Cons: 13 (12) LD to LAB: 29 (34) LD to UKIP: 13 (9) LD to Green: 13 (5)
Scottish Subsample VI - not 2010
SNP: 41 for November & October LAB: 25 (27 in October).
Labour Lead: GB
6 in January, 1 in November
What this shows is the huge dissatisfaction with the main parties. To win a majority, either party will need to get back some of the support it has lost. The comfort for the Tories is that it has lost a fifth of its support to UKIP and has a chance to get some of that back.
What it shows is the toxicity of Ed Miliband killing Labour's 35% strategy. So much for hanging on to the 2010 voters and adding on the LibDems to get Ed into Downing Street. January to November, the Tories have lost 2%, Labour 8%.
The Tories have clawed back 1% of their supporters going to Labour - whilst Labour has lost another 1% to the Tories. These now show a net transfer of 2010 voters going from Labour to the Conservatives. Which is a fascinating direction of travel for the mass of Labour/Tory marginals next May.
As is the net loss of LibDem voters. It was a net 22% differential between Labour/Tories - that is now down to 16%. Still very handy for Labour, but a worrying fall off for them.
What matters is not votes but seats. National vote shares are almost totally irrelevant when you've got FPTP in 650 individual seats.
So the LDs can be down to 6% in some online panel polls yet in the same week we get seat polling that points to them securing 30+ in May.
UKIP can be in late teens or low 20s yet there are precious few seats where they are ahead.
A crucial point made by OGH and something PBers should remind themselves of regularly as the general election looms.
Kippers should be especially wary of the Alliance performance in 1983 - 25% returned only 23 MP's of which few were non incumbents. Hundreds of second places but few bums on the benches.
UKIP's vote is more concentrated than that of the Alliance, but there will be relatively few UKIP wins in 2015.
SO The economy is now growing, I agree Thatcher did make some mistakes, and one was not getting replacement industry for ex mining communities, though she did promote industrial parks and investment from the likes of Nissan and Toyota which has brought some jobs. However, the general trend to a service sector rather than mass manufacturing/primary industry economy would have occurred regardless of Thatcher
In 2008 (wiki) there were 180,000 employees in automobile manufacturing and 640,000 in supply, retail and servicing.
A lot of those are down to Nissan and Honda proving that the UK workforce has the skills and capabilities to make volume manufacturing profitable (with the right management and systems).
I think "some jobs" is rather unfair to Thatcher's achievement.
How many were lost in the Dagenham and surrounding areas ?
The point you miss is that consumers haven't benefitted from the use of intelligent foreign labour.. things cost more than they used to even though the people who work for the companies are paid the same (or less)
An influx of Eastern European electricians and plumbers has meant the wages of plumbers and electricians has stagnated, but their bosses profit margins have increased big time.
Say we accept your claim about prices and wages, who's getting the saving when the plumbers and electricians are self-employed?
Most are, they are self employed but rely on a kind of zero hours contract arrangement with the companies who get the big jobs.
So it is the boss of the company that gets the saving
They top up their wages if they can get private jobs where they can charge the old rate, but the bread and butter wages have stagnated
But with more labour supply aren't there more companies bidding for the big work? And if that is the case, don't they have to be bidding at lower prices? The supermarkets, for example, have been able to use the availability of cheap foreign labour (and produce) to drive down the prices they pay farmers. Is there any evidence that the same kind of thing is not happening elsewhere?
It doesn't seem to be the case from what I hear from friends in that industry
The point you miss is that consumers haven't benefitted from the use of intelligent foreign labour.. things cost more than they used to even though the people who work for the companies are paid the same (or less)
An influx of Eastern European electricians and plumbers has meant the wages of plumbers and electricians has stagnated, but their bosses profit margins have increased big time.
Say we accept your claim about prices and wages, who's getting the saving when the plumbers and electricians are self-employed?
Most are, they are self employed but rely on a kind of zero hours contract arrangement with the companies who get the big jobs.
So it is the boss of the company that gets the saving
They top up their wages if they can get private jobs where they can charge the old rate, but the bread and butter wages have stagnated
But with more labour supply aren't there more companies bidding for the big work? And if that is the case, don't they have to be bidding at lower prices? The supermarkets, for example, have been able to use the availability of cheap foreign labour (and produce) to drive down the prices they pay farmers. Is there any evidence that the same kind of thing is not happening elsewhere?
doesn't that rather ignore that in driving down prices, you're driving down income, so more people become benefit dependent ? When they're benefit dependent taxes have to rise to pay for them so the consumer "saving" probably isn't. All we're discussing is do you pay the workman his full price or do you pay the difference to HMG ?
Out of interest what are skilled plumbers and electricians making in Essex and Kent nowadays, and is it a level that's resulting in a lot of benefits?
PS. I just got an ad through my door with a sticker to attach to the fridge with a number for a plumber at the top and a number for a lawyer at the bottom. I'll know who to call if I ever get my drains clogged up with body parts.
Interesting description from Socrates of the typical UKIP voter. A bit of a caricature and the description gives them a nobility that I'm sure a lot of us would argue with but even if we accept these noble sons and daughters of toil to be what Socrates sees them to be I'd still have a problem. Why do we allow them to demand the closed shop Thatcher and her party denied to the unions?
Because the British governments should take responsibility for the welfare of its own citizens over that of foreign citizens, in a way it shouldn't take responsibility for the welfare of union members over non-union members.
The welfare of foreign citizens isn't even part of Roger's argument. You're advocating a closed shop to keep British production expensive, which you hope will be to the benefit of British workers, and (except for mysterious Isam economics) is going to be at the expense of British consumers. This is exactly what Thatcher thought consumers shouldn't have stump up for to benefit miners or workers in other unionized industries.
Globalisation isn't working for most Westerners any more. If real wages are static, and property prices are rising faster than inflation, it's pretty cold cold comfort that some consumer goods are cheaper than would otherwise b the case.
The point you miss is that consumers haven't benefitted from the use of intelligent foreign labour.. things cost more than they used to even though the people who work for the companies are paid the same (or less)
An influx of Eastern European electricians and plumbers has meant the wages of plumbers and electricians has stagnated, but their bosses profit margins have increased big time.
Say we accept your claim about prices and wages, who's getting the saving when the plumbers and electricians are self-employed?
Most are, they are self employed but rely on a kind of zero hours contract arrangement with the companies who get the big jobs.
So it is the boss of the company that gets the saving
They top up their wages if they can get private jobs where they can charge the old rate, but the bread and butter wages have stagnated
Let me make this as clear as I can. Somebody lives in a house. They need some plumbing done. They hire a plumber. Who's getting the saving?
No need to try and be patronising
For small jobs like that I dare say there hasn't been a massive change in price, but that is not the kind of work that pays the bills for plumbers/electricians
The point you miss is that consumers haven't benefitted from the use of intelligent foreign labour.. things cost more than they used to even though the people who work for the companies are paid the same (or less)
An influx of Eastern European electricians and plumbers has meant the wages of plumbers and electricians has stagnated, but their bosses profit margins have increased big time.
Say we accept your claim about prices and wages, who's getting the saving when the plumbers and electricians are self-employed?
Most are, they are self employed but rely on a kind of zero hours contract arrangement with the companies who get the big jobs.
So it is the boss of the company that gets the saving
They top up their wages if they can get private jobs where they can charge the old rate, but the bread and butter wages have stagnated
Let me make this as clear as I can. Somebody lives in a house. They need some plumbing done. They hire a plumber. Who's getting the saving?
what happens if nobody is becasue it's simply transfer pricing ? Hourly price forced down but consumer pays it through higher taxes such as VAT to pay for benefits. Maybe that's why you are now calling for a "living wage".
The point you miss is that consumers haven't benefitted from the use of intelligent foreign labour.. things cost more than they used to even though the people who work for the companies are paid the same (or less)
An influx of Eastern European electricians and plumbers has meant the wages of plumbers and electricians has stagnated, but their bosses profit margins have increased big time.
Say we accept your claim about prices and wages, who's getting the saving when the plumbers and electricians are self-employed?
Most are, they are self employed but rely on a kind of zero hours contract arrangement with the companies who get the big jobs.
So it is the boss of the company that gets the saving
They top up their wages if they can get private jobs where they can charge the old rate, but the bread and butter wages have stagnated
But with more labour supply aren't there more companies bidding for the big work? And if that is the case, don't they have to be bidding at lower prices? The supermarkets, for example, have been able to use the availability of cheap foreign labour (and produce) to drive down the prices they pay farmers. Is there any evidence that the same kind of thing is not happening elsewhere?
doesn't that rather ignore that in driving down prices, you're driving down income, so more people become benefit dependent ? When they're benefit dependent taxes have to rise to pay for them so the consumer "saving" probably isn't. All we're discussing is do you pay the workman his full price or do you pay the difference to HMG ?
No, it does not ignore it - my argument is with the notion that the availability of cheap labour does not lead to a reduction in prices in one form or another. It may also create services that otherwise might not exist. The coffee isam talks about below may be expensive, but it is available if you care to buy it. Maybe it would not be if companies had to pay higher wages. I agree that the lower the wages, the higher the likelihood that the taxpayer is forking out top ups.
Likewise the selfish nimbys who object to railways were happy to benefit from the desicration of our landscape in places like Lancashire and South Wales which gave them the coal for their electricity.
Care to comment?
Shinwell, intent on the destruction of the Fitzwilliams and "the privileged rich", decreed that the mining would continue to the back door of Wentworth, the family's East Front. What followed saw the mining of 99 acres (400,000 m2) of lawns and woods, the renowned formal gardens and the show-piece pink shale driveway (a by-product of the family's collieries). Ancient trees were uprooted and the debris of earth and rubble was piled 50 ft (15 m) high in front of the family's living quarters.[25]
Local opinion supported the Earl. Joe Hall, Yorkshire branch President of the National Union of Mineworkers said that the "miners in this area will go to almost any length rather than see Wentworth Woodhouse destroyed. To many mining communities it is sacred ground" - in an industry known for harsh treatment of workers, the Fitzwilliams were respected employers known for treating their employees well. The Yorkshire branch later threatened a strike over the Government's plans for Wentworth, and Joe Hall wrote personally to Clement Attlee in a futile attempt to stop the mining.[25] This spontaneous local activism, founded on the genuine popularity of the Fitzwilliam family amongst locals, was dismissed in Whitehall as "intrigue" sponsored by the Earl
The point you miss is that consumers haven't benefitted from the use of intelligent foreign labour.. things cost more than they used to even though the people who work for the companies are paid the same (or less)
An influx of Eastern European electricians and plumbers has meant the wages of plumbers and electricians has stagnated, but their bosses profit margins have increased big time.
Say we accept your claim about prices and wages, who's getting the saving when the plumbers and electricians are self-employed?
Most are, they are self employed but rely on a kind of zero hours contract arrangement with the companies who get the big jobs.
So it is the boss of the company that gets the saving
They top up their wages if they can get private jobs where they can charge the old rate, but the bread and butter wages have stagnated
Let me make this as clear as I can. Somebody lives in a house. They need some plumbing done. They hire a plumber. Who's getting the saving?
what happens if nobody is becasue it's simply transfer pricing ? Hourly price forced down but consumer pays it through higher taxes such as VAT to pay for benefits. Maybe that's why you are now calling for a "living wage".
Have just calculated the Medians for the 2010sVIs.
Results are for November 2014 (with January 2014 in brackets).
Cons Retention: 74 (76) Cons to LAB: 3 (5) Cons to LD: 1 (1) Cons to UKIP: 19 (17) Cons to Green: 1 (0)
LAB Retention: 77 (85) LAB to Cons: 5 (4) LAB to LD: 1 (2) LAB to UKIP: 8 (5) LAB to Green: 4 (1)
LD Retention: 27 (35) LD to Cons: 13 (12) LD to LAB: 29 (34) LD to UKIP: 13 (9) LD to Green: 13 (5)
Scottish Subsample VI - not 2010
SNP: 41 for November & October LAB: 25 (27 in October).
Labour Lead: GB
6 in January, 1 in November
What it shows is the toxicity of Ed Miliband killing Labour's 35% strategy. So much for hanging on to the 2010 voters and adding on the LibDems to get Ed into Downing Street. January to November, the Tories have lost 2%, Labour 8%.
The Tories have clawed back 1% of their supporters going to Labour - whilst Labour has lost another 1% to the Tories. These now show a net transfer of 2010 voters going from Labour to the Conservatives. Which is a fascinating direction of travel for the mass of Labour/Tory marginals next May.
As is the net loss of LibDem voters. It was a net 22% differential between Labour/Tories - that is now down to 16%. Still very handy for Labour, but a worrying fall off for them.
What matters is not votes but seats. National vote shares are almost totally irrelevant when you've got FPTP in 650 individual seats.
So the LDs can be down to 6% in some online panel polls yet in the same week we get seat polling that points to them securing 30+ in May.
UKIP can be in late teens or low 20s yet there are precious few seats where they are ahead.
A crucial point made by OGH and something PBers should remind themselves of regularly as the general election looms.
Kippers should be especially wary of the Alliance performance in 1983 - 25% returned only 23 MP's of which few were non incumbents. Hundreds of second places but few bums on the benches.
Most Kippers would have settled for 2 seats in May 2015 had you asked them 18 months ago... and if we get 16-17% of the vote and 3-4 seats I would be well pleased
I thinking UKIP's best result will be the possibility of a Con-UKIP coalition. It will also wreck the conservative party in due course.
Otherwise, the party will wither away eventually. SDP did ! That's why they had to create the LDP.
Most Kippers would have settled for 2 seats in May 2015 had you asked them 18 months ago... and if we get 16-17% of the vote and 3-4 seats I would be well pleased
UKIP will be the dog that didn't bark, come election night.
I will not be surprised if Carswell is your party's sole representative in the next Parliament - a lonely and forlorn figure on the opposition benches. Will he even want Leadership of the Party?
Still, he's a thinker. He will have plenty of time to think.
The point you miss is that consumers haven't benefitted from the use of intelligent foreign labour.. things cost more than they used to even though the people who work for the companies are paid the same (or less)
An influx of Eastern European electricians and plumbers has meant the wages of plumbers and electricians has stagnated, but their bosses profit margins have increased big time.
Say we accept your claim about prices and wages, who's getting the saving when the plumbers and electricians are self-employed?
Most are, they are self employed but rely on a kind of zero hours contract arrangement with the companies who get the big jobs.
So it is the boss of the company that gets the saving
They top up their wages if they can get private jobs where they can charge the old rate, but the bread and butter wages have stagnated
But with more labour supply aren't there more companies bidding for the big work? And if that is the case, don't they have to be bidding at lower prices? The supermarkets, for example, have been able to use the availability of cheap foreign labour (and produce) to drive down the prices they pay farmers. Is there any evidence that the same kind of thing is not happening elsewhere?
It doesn't seem to be the case from what I hear from friends in that industry
If the bosses are pocketing all the money and not passing on the savings to consumers your mates have a great business opportunity. They can get together and bid for big-ticket work themselves based on lower prices that would still improve their incomes.
The point you miss is that consumers haven't benefitted from the use of intelligent foreign labour.. things cost more than they used to even though the people who work for the companies are paid the same (or less)
An influx of Eastern European electricians and plumbers has meant the wages of plumbers and electricians has stagnated, but their bosses profit margins have increased big time.
Say we accept your claim about prices and wages, who's getting the saving when the plumbers and electricians are self-employed?
Most are, they are self employed but rely on a kind of zero hours contract arrangement with the companies who get the big jobs.
So it is the boss of the company that gets the saving
They top up their wages if they can get private jobs where they can charge the old rate, but the bread and butter wages have stagnated
Let me make this as clear as I can. Somebody lives in a house. They need some plumbing done. They hire a plumber. Who's getting the saving?
No need to try and be patronising
For small jobs like that I dare say there hasn't been a massive change in price, but that is not the kind of work that pays the bills for plumbers/electricians
Hang on, there hasn't been a big change of price for small jobs? Why do you think wages for small jobs are staying the same while there's been a big change in wages for big jobs (that mysteriously aren't being passed onto consumers)?
The point you miss is that consumers haven't benefitted from the use of intelligent foreign labour.. things cost more than they used to even though the people who work for the companies are paid the same (or less)
An influx of Eastern European electricians and plumbers has meant the wages of plumbers and electricians has stagnated, but their bosses profit margins have increased big time.
Say we accept your claim about prices and wages, who's getting the saving when the plumbers and electricians are self-employed?
Most are, they are self employed but rely on a kind of zero hours contract arrangement with the companies who get the big jobs.
So it is the boss of the company that gets the saving
They top up their wages if they can get private jobs where they can charge the old rate, but the bread and butter wages have stagnated
But with more labour supply aren't there more companies bidding for the big work? And if that is the case, don't they have to be bidding at lower prices? The supermarkets, for example, have been able to use the availability of cheap foreign labour (and produce) to drive down the prices they pay farmers. Is there any evidence that the same kind of thing is not happening elsewhere?
It doesn't seem to be the case from what I hear from friends in that industry
If the bosses are pocketing all the money and not passing on the savings to consumers your mates have a great business opportunity. They can get together and bid for big-ticket work themselves based on lower prices that would still improve their incomes.
I think you are more interested in scoring points than really discussing it.. this is what is happening, and why people are fed up with the immigration policy we have.
Why do you think wages for the poorest are going down, while GDP goes up or stands still?
The point you miss is that consumers haven't benefitted from the use of intelligent foreign labour.. things cost more than they used to even though the people who work for the companies are paid the same (or less)
An influx of Eastern European electricians and plumbers has meant the wages of plumbers and electricians has stagnated, but their bosses profit margins have increased big time.
Say we accept your claim about prices and wages, who's getting the saving when the plumbers and electricians are self-employed?
Most are, they are self employed but rely on a kind of zero hours contract arrangement with the companies who get the big jobs.
So it is the boss of the company that gets the saving
They top up their wages if they can get private jobs where they can charge the old rate, but the bread and butter wages have stagnated
Let me make this as clear as I can. Somebody lives in a house. They need some plumbing done. They hire a plumber. Who's getting the saving?
You are ignoring the plumber's increases in other costs that go a substantial way to forcing him to charge higher prices.
Most Kippers would have settled for 2 seats in May 2015 had you asked them 18 months ago... and if we get 16-17% of the vote and 3-4 seats I would be well pleased
UKIP will be the dog that didn't bark, come election night.
I will not be surprised if Carswell is your party's sole representative in the next Parliament - a lonely and forlorn figure on the opposition benches. Will he even want Leadership of the Party?
Still, he's a thinker. He will have plenty of time to think.
Well anything is possible
If you want to frame a bet on UKIP only getting one MP I am all ears
The point you miss is that consumers haven't benefitted from the use of intelligent foreign labour.. things cost more than they used to even though the people who work for the companies are paid the same (or less)
An influx of Eastern European electricians and plumbers has meant the wages of plumbers and electricians has stagnated, but their bosses profit margins have increased big time.
Say we accept your claim about prices and wages, who's getting the saving when the plumbers and electricians are self-employed?
Most are, they are self employed but rely on a kind of zero hours contract arrangement with the companies who get the big jobs.
So it is the boss of the company that gets the saving
They top up their wages if they can get private jobs where they can charge the old rate, but the bread and butter wages have stagnated
Let me make this as clear as I can. Somebody lives in a house. They need some plumbing done. They hire a plumber. Who's getting the saving?
No need to try and be patronising
For small jobs like that I dare say there hasn't been a massive change in price, but that is not the kind of work that pays the bills for plumbers/electricians
Hang on, there hasn't been a big change of price for small jobs? Why do you think wages for small jobs are staying the same while there's been a big change in wages for big jobs (that mysteriously aren't being passed onto consumers)?
The point you miss is that consumers haven't benefitted from the use of intelligent foreign labour.. things cost more than they used to even though the people who work for the companies are paid the same (or less)
An influx of Eastern European electricians and plumbers has meant the wages of plumbers and electricians has stagnated, but their bosses profit margins have increased big time.
Say we accept your claim about prices and wages, who's getting the saving when the plumbers and electricians are self-employed?
Most are, they are self employed but rely on a kind of zero hours contract arrangement with the companies who get the big jobs.
So it is the boss of the company that gets the saving
They top up their wages if they can get private jobs where they can charge the old rate, but the bread and butter wages have stagnated
But with more labour supply aren't there more companies bidding for the big work? And if that is the case, don't they have to be bidding at lower prices? The supermarkets, for example, have been able to use the availability of cheap foreign labour (and produce) to drive down the prices they pay farmers. Is there any evidence that the same kind of thing is not happening elsewhere?
It doesn't seem to be the case from what I hear from friends in that industry
If the bosses are pocketing all the money and not passing on the savings to consumers your mates have a great business opportunity. They can get together and bid for big-ticket work themselves based on lower prices that would still improve their incomes.
I think you are more interested in scoring points than really discussing it.. this is what is happening, and why people are fed up with the immigration policy we have.
When you lose an argument, you blame someone else. Of course, Johnny Foreigner.
Interesting description from Socrates of the typical UKIP voter. A bit of a caricature and the description gives them a nobility that I'm sure a lot of us would argue with but even if we accept these noble sons and daughters of toil to be what Socrates sees them to be I'd still have a problem. Why do we allow them to demand the closed shop Thatcher and her party denied to the unions? I don't remember any Tory leader going to the barricades for the miners right to keep out competition because all they wanted was to do right by their kids. I certainly don't remember any Tory making the kind of speech Cameron made the other day in support of these Honest Johns at the expense of all us consumers who have patently benefitted from the intelligent foreign labour we have recently been importing from Europe
"Why do we allow them to demand ..."
Why shouldn't people be allowed to demand anything they like?
"all us consumers who have patently benefitted from the intelligent foreign labour we have recently been importing from Europe"
Careful with "imported" in terms of people.. OGH and @SouthamObserver go crazy at the use of that word when referring to human beings.
The point you miss is that consumers haven't benefitted from the use of intelligent foreign labour.. things cost more than they used to even though the people who work for the companies are paid the same (or less)
An influx of Eastern European electricians and plumbers has meant the wages of plumbers and electricians has stagnated, but their bosses profit margins have increased big time.
The coffee in Pattisire Valerie is still expensive, despite the low rates of pay for the immigrant waitresses
So the consumer doesn't benefit, neither does the worker.
I think it's more the case that slightly cheaper plumbers or builders are things that are "nice to have" rather than being really important.
I'm fairly well-off. I'm not adversely economically affected by mass immigration. But, I can see that a society in which the economic burden of mass immigration is borne by people by people lower down the food chain, while the benefits accrue to people like me and upwards, will be an increasingly tense and bitter one.
Charles says -- ''I think "some jobs" is rather unfair to Thatcher's achievement. ''
Correct. I nearly spat out my bacon sandwich when I read that. We were right not to subsidise the dying industries. There were however no compulsory mining redundancies, it was all voluntary after individual pit votes and the compensation was massive - more than MG-Rover workers got under the total mess Labour made of the rump British car industry. (Indeed BMW gave £500 million which would have been a massive payoff but Labours chosen management wasted it all.)
And there were large grants and tax breaks and whatever for new industries to set up in those areas.
And as I said before the associated point about complaints about imported labour is the same argument abouit imported coal. The issue is about 'benefit cheats'. But noverwhelmingly the biggest issue is the one about our own people languiashing on benefots. The issue is of bad education bad training bad motivation. We have the available people - Why do emplyers not want them and why are they so badly motivated for work?
I suggest to everyone that it is socialism which for whatever reason always campaigns against restricting benefits mand perpetuating the problem. And of course they are soft on education as well. And lets not forget that for crude selfish reasons Farage and UKIP jumped on the 'spare bedroom benefit' issue.
SO The economy is now growing, I agree Thatcher did make some mistakes, and one was not getting replacement industry for ex mining communities, though she did promote industrial parks and investment from the likes of Nissan and Toyota which has brought some jobs. However, the general trend to a service sector rather than mass manufacturing/primary industry economy would have occurred regardless of Thatcher
In 2008 (wiki) there were 180,000 employees in automobile manufacturing and 640,000 in supply, retail and servicing.
A lot of those are down to Nissan and Honda proving that the UK workforce has the skills and capabilities to make volume manufacturing profitable (with the right management and systems).
I think "some jobs" is rather unfair to Thatcher's achievement.
How many were lost in the Dagenham and surrounding areas ?
I don't know.
But sometimes you need to start again to build a new working culture. Ford would have struggled to turn around the business: they had weak management, poorly sited facilities with an inefficient product flow and a long history of mistrust (on both side) with the workers representatives. Nissan, starting with a greenfield site, could invest in a optimised factory with modern equipment and build a collaborative culture based on just-in-time and six sigma principles
The point you miss is that consumers haven't benefitted from the use of intelligent foreign labour.. things cost more than they used to even though the people who work for the companies are paid the same (or less)
An influx of Eastern European electricians and plumbers has meant the wages of plumbers and electricians has stagnated, but their bosses profit margins have increased big time.
Say we accept your claim about prices and wages, who's getting the saving when the plumbers and electricians are self-employed?
Most are, they are self employed but rely on a kind of zero hours contract arrangement with the companies who get the big jobs.
So it is the boss of the company that gets the saving
They top up their wages if they can get private jobs where they can charge the old rate, but the bread and butter wages have stagnated
But with more labour supply aren't there more companies bidding for the big work? And if that is the case, don't they have to be bidding at lower prices? The supermarkets, for example, have been able to use the availability of cheap foreign labour (and produce) to drive down the prices they pay farmers. Is there any evidence that the same kind of thing is not happening elsewhere?
It doesn't seem to be the case from what I hear from friends in that industry
If the bosses are pocketing all the money and not passing on the savings to consumers your mates have a great business opportunity. They can get together and bid for big-ticket work themselves based on lower prices that would still improve their incomes.
I think you are more interested in scoring points than really discussing it.. this is what is happening, and why people are fed up with the immigration policy we have.
You can think what you like. The fact is that if bosses are not passing savings on to consumers that creates significant business opportunities for those who are prepared to do so. What may be happening is that your mates are blaming immigrants for things that they could actually do something about.
The point you miss is that consumers haven't benefitted from the use of intelligent foreign labour.. things cost more than they used to even though the people who work for the companies are paid the same (or less)
An influx of Eastern European electricians and plumbers has meant the wages of plumbers and electricians has stagnated, but their bosses profit margins have increased big time.
Say we accept your claim about prices and wages, who's getting the saving when the plumbers and electricians are self-employed?
Most are, they are self employed but rely on a kind of zero hours contract arrangement with the companies who get the big jobs.
So it is the boss of the company that gets the saving
They top up their wages if they can get private jobs where they can charge the old rate, but the bread and butter wages have stagnated
But with more labour supply aren't there more companies bidding for the big work? And if that is the case, don't they have to be bidding at lower prices? The supermarkets, for example, have been able to use the availability of cheap foreign labour (and produce) to drive down the prices they pay farmers. Is there any evidence that the same kind of thing is not happening elsewhere?
doesn't that rather ignore that in driving down prices, you're driving down income, so more people become benefit dependent ? When they're benefit dependent taxes have to rise to pay for them so the consumer "saving" probably isn't. All we're discussing is do you pay the workman his full price or do you pay the difference to HMG ?
Out of interest what are skilled plumbers and electricians making in Essex and Kent nowadays, and is it a level that's resulting in a lot of benefits?
PS. I just got an ad through my door with a sticker to attach to the fridge with a number for a plumber at the top and a number for a lawyer at the bottom. I'll know who to call if I ever get my drains clogged up with body parts.
About 10 years ago my plumber whinged to me that he was having to sell his Porsche to afford his daughter's school fees!
The point you miss is that consumers haven't benefitted from the use of intelligent foreign labour.. things cost more than they used to even though the people who work for the companies are paid the same (or less)
An influx of Eastern European electricians and plumbers has meant the wages of plumbers and electricians has stagnated, but their bosses profit margins have increased big time.
Say we accept your claim about prices and wages, who's getting the saving when the plumbers and electricians are self-employed?
Most are, they are self employed but rely on a kind of zero hours contract arrangement with the companies who get the big jobs.
So it is the boss of the company that gets the saving
They top up their wages if they can get private jobs where they can charge the old rate, but the bread and butter wages have stagnated
But with more labour supply aren't there more companies bidding for the big work? And if that is the case, don't they have to be bidding at lower prices? The supermarkets, for example, have been able to use the availability of cheap foreign labour (and produce) to drive down the prices they pay farmers. Is there any evidence that the same kind of thing is not happening elsewhere?
It doesn't seem to be the case from what I hear from friends in that industry
If the bosses are pocketing all the money and not passing on the savings to consumers your mates have a great business opportunity. They can get together and bid for big-ticket work themselves based on lower prices that would still improve their incomes.
I think you are more interested in scoring points than really discussing it.. this is what is happening, and why people are fed up with the immigration policy we have.
You can think what you like. The fact is that if bosses are not passing savings on to consumers that creates significant business opportunities for those who are prepared to do so. What may be happening is that your mates are blaming immigrants for things that they could actually do something about.
Possibly, but they are the kind of people that are voting UKIP.. maybe because they are not as intellectually superior as yourself
Why have the wages of the poorest gone down while GDP goes up do you think?
I think its because employers are using cheap labour from EU migrants to increase their profit margin without passing on the benefit to the consumer
The point you miss is that consumers haven't benefitted from the use of intelligent foreign labour.. things cost more than they used to even though the people who work for the companies are paid the same (or less)
An influx of Eastern European electricians and plumbers has meant the wages of plumbers and electricians has stagnated, but their bosses profit margins have increased big time.
Say we accept your claim about prices and wages, who's getting the saving when the plumbers and electricians are self-employed?
Most are, they are self employed but rely on a kind of zero hours contract arrangement with the companies who get the big jobs.
So it is the boss of the company that gets the saving
They top up their wages if they can get private jobs where they can charge the old rate, but the bread and butter wages have stagnated
But with more labour supply aren't there more companies bidding for the big work? And if that is the case, don't they have to be bidding at lower prices? The supermarkets, for example, have been able to use the availability of cheap foreign labour (and produce) to drive down the prices they pay farmers. Is there any evidence that the same kind of thing is not happening elsewhere?
It doesn't seem to be the case from what I hear from friends in that industry
If the bosses are pocketing all the money and not passing on the savings to consumers your mates have a great business opportunity. They can get together and bid for big-ticket work themselves based on lower prices that would still improve their incomes.
I think you are more interested in scoring points than really discussing it.. this is what is happening, and why people are fed up with the immigration policy we have.
When you lose an argument, you blame someone else. Of course, Johnny Foreigner.
You could say Labour, Tories and Lib Dems have lost the arguments, are losing voters and their diehard followers are blaming UKIP
Most Kippers would have settled for 2 seats in May 2015 had you asked them 18 months ago... and if we get 16-17% of the vote and 3-4 seats I would be well pleased
UKIP will be the dog that didn't bark, come election night.
I will not be surprised if Carswell is your party's sole representative in the next Parliament - a lonely and forlorn figure on the opposition benches. Will he even want Leadership of the Party?
Still, he's a thinker. He will have plenty of time to think.
Well anything is possible
If you want to frame a bet on UKIP only getting one MP I am all ears
Round about Christmas 1982, even after the Falklands, people were talking about the SDP/Liberal Alliance being the main opposition party!
@Sean_F UKIP's vote is more concentrated than that of the Alliance, but there will be relatively few UKIP wins in 2015.
"Here Comes That Song Again"
Here comes that song again They're playing that song again I guess it will never end They're playing it again
Here comes that song again Here comes that old ache within The story of UKIP begins They're telling it again
I'll have to leave I can't bear it anymore There must be a place where They'll play a different score
Here comes that song again The jukebox must have found a friend My heart will never mend They're playing it again
That old song of UKIP vanishing or getting nil MP's is getting pretty desperate from the Lab/lib/Cons among us. Wake up and smell the coffee hombres, UKIP is here to stay, so take your weird dreams and stuff 'em.
Have just calculated the Medians for the 2010sVIs.
Results are for November 2014 (with January 2014 in brackets).
Cons Retention: 74 (76) Cons to LAB: 3 (5) Cons to LD: 1 (1) Cons to UKIP: 19 (17) Cons to Green: 1 (0)
LAB Retention: 77 (85) LAB to Cons: 5 (4) LAB to LD: 1 (2) LAB to UKIP: 8 (5) LAB to Green: 4 (1)
LD Retention: 27 (35) LD to Cons: 13 (12) LD to LAB: 29 (34) LD to UKIP: 13 (9) LD to Green: 13 (5)
Scottish Subsample VI - not 2010
SNP: 41 for November & October LAB: 25 (27 in October).
Labour Lead: GB
6 in January, 1 in November
What this shows is the huge dissatisfaction with the main parties. To win a majority, either party will need to get back some of the support it has lost. The comfort for the Tories is that it has lost a fifth of its support to UKIP and has a chance to get some of that back.
What it shows is the toxicity of Ed Miliband killing Labour's 35% strategy. So much for hanging on to the 2010 voters and adding on the LibDems to get Ed into Downing Street. January to November, the Tories have lost 2%, Labour 8%.
The Tories have clawed back 1% of their supporters going to Labour - whilst Labour has lost another 1% to the Tories. These now show a net transfer of 2010 voters going from Labour to the Conservatives. Which is a fascinating direction of travel for the mass of Labour/Tory marginals next May.
As is the net loss of LibDem voters. It was a net 22% differential between Labour/Tories - that is now down to 16%. Still very handy for Labour, but a worrying fall off for them.
What matters is not votes but seats. National vote shares are almost totally irrelevant when you've got FPTP in 650 individual seats.
So the LDs can be down to 6% in some online panel polls yet in the same week we get seat polling that points to them securing 30+ in May.
UKIP can be in late teens or low 20s yet there are precious few seats where they are ahead.
A crucial point made by OGH and something PBers should remind themselves of regularly as the general election looms.
Kippers should be especially wary of the Alliance performance in 1983 - 25% returned only 23 MP's of which few were non incumbents. Hundreds of second places but few bums on the benches.
Don't worry ! The serial moaners will still moan that the election was "stolen" from them.
As a Labour supporter, I am beginning to like FPTP [ though, of course, it is totally indefensible ]. All we need is for the Labour vote to recover to something like 34% in Scotland.
You could say Labour, Tories and Lib Dems have lost the arguments, are losing voters and their diehard followers are blaming UKIP
You could also say that UKIP is the party of sucking air through teeth and saying "I wouldn't have started from here...."
It knows what it doesn't like. But we have heard very little about what they would do instead. When they try, they trip up over Nigel Farage's ego. WAG Tax, repatriation, NHS privatisation - confusion aplenty in the UKIP ranks.
They have got a couple of months to put together a coherent case for Govt. Or they are going to get ripped to shreds. There are many, many people with very differing political outlooks and objectives who would love to see UKIP come a cropper. And there's only so long that Farage can cry "Infamy! Infamy! They've all got it in fer me!" before people say "Yeah - but answer the question mate...."
Farage is a middle order politician. He's the Junior Minister you would put your money on doing Something Really Stupid and being the first to have to resign from government. The big surprise of May 2015 may yet be the Unravelling of Nigel Farage's Credibility.....
[snip] UKIP is the perfect protest party, taking the issue of Europe that has given Britain a raw deal, but as voters learn that it is a libertarian party, further to the right of the Conservatives and not the party of the ordinary people, as widely perceived, some of that support will fall off and make Cameron look relatively more moderate.
Welcome to PB @Eddie. Are you sure you know what a "libertarian party" looks like? The UKIP of five years ago to a degree but certainly not today. I'd join one if it existed. And UKIP is clearly to the left of the Conservatives on many economic issues.
Hardly to the right of the Conservatives on social issues either. UKIP accept gay marriage, for example, which is a line which could have swayed my vote. I'd argue that as they've grown and lost their radical streak UKIP have become much less appealing to those of us who want less State.
Is there a ComRes out today? Unless they come to the rescue, ELBOW so far seems to be showing that one of the two main parties has taken a hit to the benefit of one of the two lesser parties...
The point you miss is that consumers haven't benefitted from the use of intelligent foreign labour.. things cost more than they used to even though the people who work for the companies are paid the same (or less)
An influx of Eastern European electricians and plumbers has meant the wages of plumbers and electricians has stagnated, but their bosses profit margins have increased big time.
Say we accept your claim about prices and wages, who's getting the saving when the plumbers and electricians are self-employed?
...
But with more labour supply aren't there more companies bidding for the big work? And if that is the case, don't they have to be bidding at lower prices? The supermarkets, for example, have been able to use the availability of cheap foreign labour (and produce) to drive down the prices they pay farmers. Is there any evidence that the same kind of thing is not happening elsewhere?
It doesn't seem to be the case from what I hear from friends in that industry
If the bosses are pocketing all the money and not passing on the savings to consumers your mates have a great business opportunity. They can get together and bid for big-ticket work themselves based on lower prices that would still improve their incomes.
I think you are more interested in scoring points than really discussing it.. this is what is happening, and why people are fed up with the immigration policy we have.
You can think what you like. The fact is that if bosses are not passing savings on to consumers that creates significant business opportunities for those who are prepared to do so. What may be happening is that your mates are blaming immigrants for things that they could actually do something about.
Possibly, but they are the kind of people that are voting UKIP.. maybe because they are not as intellectually superior as yourself
Why have the wages of the poorest gone down while GDP goes up do you think?
I think its because employers are using cheap labour from EU migrants to increase their profit margin without passing on the benefit to the consumer
Have the wages of the 'poorest' gone down? There has been wage restraint because people want to keep in theor jobs after the recession.
The point you miss is that consumers haven't benefitted from the use of intelligent foreign labour.. things cost more than they used to even though the people who work for the companies are paid the same (or less)
An influx of Eastern European electricians and plumbers has meant the wages of plumbers and electricians has stagnated, but their bosses profit margins have increased big time.
Say we accept your claim about prices and wages, who's getting the saving when the plumbers and electricians are self-employed?
...
But with more labour supply aren't there more companies bidding for the big work? And if that is the case, don't they have to be bidding at lower prices? The supermarkets, for example, have been able to use the availability of cheap foreign labour (and produce) to drive down the prices they pay farmers. Is there any evidence that the same kind of thing is not happening elsewhere?
It doesn't seem to be the case from what I hear from friends in that industry
If the bosses are pocketing all the money and not passing on the savings to consumers your mates have a great business opportunity. They can get together and bid for big-ticket work themselves based on lower prices that would still improve their incomes.
I think you are more interested in scoring points than really discussing it.. this is what is happening, and why people are fed up with the immigration policy we have.
You can think what you like. The fact is that if bosses are not passing savings on to consumers that creates significant business opportunities for those who are prepared to do so. What may be happening is that your mates are blaming immigrants for things that they could actually do something about.
Possibly, but they are the kind of people that are voting UKIP.. maybe because they are not as intellectually superior as yourself
Why have the wages of the poorest gone down while GDP goes up do you think?
I think its because employers are using cheap labour from EU migrants to increase their profit margin without passing on the benefit to the consumer
Have the wages of the 'poorest' gone down? There has been wage restraint because people want to keep in theor jobs after the recession.
Net wages ? Big income tax cuts for the lowest paid since 2010.
The point you miss is that consumers haven't benefitted from the use of intelligent foreign labour.. things cost more than they used to even though the people who work for the companies are paid the same (or less)
An influx of Eastern European electricians and plumbers has meant the wages of plumbers and electricians has stagnated, but their bosses profit margins have increased big time.
Say we accept your claim about prices and wages, who's getting the saving when the plumbers and electricians are self-employed?
Most are, they are self employed but rely on a kind of zero hours contract arrangement with the companies who get the big jobs.
So it is the boss of the company that gets the saving
They top up their wages if they can get private jobs where they can charge the old rate, but the bread and butter wages have stagnated
But with more labour supply aren't there more companies bidding for the big work? And if that is the case, don't they have to be bidding at lower prices? The supermarkets, for example, have been able to use the availability of cheap foreign labour (and produce) to drive down the prices they pay farmers. Is there any evidence that the same kind of thing is not happening elsewhere?
It doesn't seem to be the case from what I hear from friends in that industry
If the bosses are pocketing all the money and not passing on the savings to consumers your mates have a great business opportunity. They can get together and bid for big-ticket work themselves based on lower prices that would still improve their incomes.
I think you are more interested in scoring points than really discussing it.. this is what is happening, and why people are fed up with the immigration policy we have.
When you lose an argument, you blame someone else. Of course, Johnny Foreigner.
You could say Labour, Tories and Lib Dems have lost the arguments, are losing voters and their diehard followers are blaming UKIP
In essence, the argument is "It's not fair that our voters have switched" followed by a temper tantrum and name-calling.
Marquee Mark - I'm not sure people are voting Ukip because they necessarily see them as a credible party of government. They are protesting, making a point about cultural values and in particular immigration. I'm not sure they need a credible agenda, they have no intention of going into power. I suppose the idea is that by voting Ukip you force the other parties to move onto Ukip territory.
Marquee Mark - I'm not sure people are voting Ukip because they necessarily see them as a credible party of government. They are protesting, making a point about cultural values and in particular immigration. I'm not sure they need a credible agenda, they have no intention of going into power. I suppose the idea is that by voting Ukip you force the other parties to move onto Ukip territory.
What kind of a half-arsed political party has no intention of going into power - except for one that tacitly admits it has no fecking clue what it would actually do to change things?
So you think UKIP is what, an equivalent to the TUC, with a political agenda but no direct interest in power? I think that would come as news to the legions of the People' Army.....
The point you miss is that consumers haven't benefitted from the use of intelligent foreign labour.. things cost more than they used to even though the people who work for the companies are paid the same (or less)
An influx of Eastern European electricians and plumbers has meant the wages of plumbers and electricians has stagnated, but their bosses profit margins have increased big time.
Say we accept your claim about prices and wages, who's getting the saving when the plumbers and electricians are self-employed?
Most are, they are self employed but rely on a kind of zero hours contract arrangement with the companies who get the big jobs.
So it is the boss of the company that gets the saving
They top up their wages if they can get private jobs where they can charge the old rate, but the bread and butter wages have stagnated
But with more labour supply aren't there more companies bidding for the big work? And if that is the case, don't they hdence that the same kind of thing is not happening elsewhere?
doesn't that rather ignore that in driving down prices, you're driving down income, so more people become benefit dependent ? When they're benefit dependent taxes have to rise to pay for them so the consumer "saving" probably isn't. All we're discussing is do you pay the workman his full price or do you pay the difference to HMG ?
No, it does not ignore it - my argument is with the notion that the availability of cheap labour does not lead to a reduction in prices in one form or anothtaxpayer is forking out top ups.
Sorry SO I can't see how paying shit wages to an immigrant who works in a US tax avoiding multinat which the rest of us then have to subsidise is in any UK citizens interest. What's in our interest is to get the 5% of "unemployable" brits in to jobs, and force the going rate for jobs back up. This not only will cut the benefits bill but will drive greater productivity which ultimately drives higher living standards.
It speaks volumes that the current economic debate is all about low wage jobs and why we need them, rather than the high wage high productivity model our leading parties claim to espouse.
@isam - "Possibly, but they are the kind of people that are voting UKIP.. maybe because they are not as intellectually superior as yourself Why have the wages of the poorest gone down while GDP goes up do you think? I think its because employers are using cheap labour from EU migrants to increase their profit margin without passing on the benefit to the consumer
You do not have to intellectually superior to see a business opportunity in the situation you describe. It is pretty obvious that if established service providers are profiteering there are bound to be significant openings for newcomers. No-one likes to pay more than they have to for something.
Putting that to one side, would you seriously describe your mates as the poorest? As tradesmen that would be highly unusual whatever the competition they face from immigrants. As Mike discusses (and as Socrates also set out) UKIP voters do not tend to be the poorest in society.
The point you miss is that consumers haven't benefitted from the use of intelligent foreign labour.. things cost more than they used to even though the people who work for the companies are paid the same (or less)
An influx of Eastern European electricians and plumbers has meant the wages of plumbers and electricians has stagnated, but their bosses profit margins have increased big time.
Say we accept your claim about prices and wages, who's getting the saving when the plumbers and electricians are self-employed?
Most are, they are self employed but rely on a kind of zero hours contract arrangement with the companies who get the big jobs.
So it is the boss of the company that gets the saving
They top up their wages if they can get private jobs where they can charge the old rate, but the bread and butter wages have stagnated
But with more labour supply aren't there more companies bidding for the big work? And if that is the case, don't they hdence that the same kind of thing is not happening elsewhere?
doesn't that rather ignore that in driving down prices, you're driving down income, so more people become benefit dependent ? When they're benefit dependent taxes have to rise to pay for them so the consumer "saving" probably isn't. All we're discussing is do you pay the workman his full price or do you pay the difference to HMG ?
No, it does not ignore it - my argument is with the notion that the availability of cheap labour does not lead to a reduction in prices in one form or anothtaxpayer is forking out top ups.
Sorry SO I can't see how paying shit wages to an immigrant who works in a US tax avoiding multinat which the rest of us then have to subsidise is in any UK citizens interest. What's in our interest is to get the 5% of "unemployable" brits in to jobs, and force the going rate for jobs back up. This not only will cut the benefits bill but will drive greater productivity which ultimately drives higher living standards.
It speaks volumes that the current economic debate is all about low wage jobs and why we need them, rather than the high wage high productivity model our leading parties claim to espouse.
@isam - "Possibly, but they are the kind of people that are voting UKIP.. maybe because they are not as intellectually superior as yourself Why have the wages of the poorest gone down while GDP goes up do you think? I think its because employers are using cheap labour from EU migrants to increase their profit margin without passing on the benefit to the consumer
You do not have to intellectually superior to see a business opportunity in the situation you describe. It is pretty obvious that if established service providers are profiteering there are bound to be significant openings for newcomers. No-one likes to pay more than they have to for something.
Putting that to one side, would you seriously describe your mates as the poorest? As tradesmen that would be highly unusual whatever the competition they face from immigrants. As Mike discusses (and as Socrates also set out) UKIP voters do not tend to be the poorest in society.
You are right, I wouldn't say my mates are the poorest at all , and I didn't mean to make out that they were (although the poorest are also affected in the way I describe)
But it seems that people are saying to those who were used to earning £35-40k a year, and had plans for the future that involved that pay increasing, that they shouldn't mind their standard of living stagnating or falling.. or working longer hours for the same pay. That's just not how it pans out in reality when they have a standard of living that they are providing for their family
When they see the people that employ them getting richer they are not happy, hence they are saying so..
Maybe other parties are obliquely saying, "get used to it", and that's why they are turning to UKIP
Last night I stayed in an excellent hotel. Reception, domestic staff and dining room all clean, helpful, well mannered and efficient. All Polish of course...
I got a good rate, so the benefit to the consumer was certainly passed on. It is rather sad that a bus-ride away there are plenty on the dole who "cannot find work". Cannot get out of bed in the morning morelike!
doesn't that rather ignore that in driving down prices, you're driving down income, so more people become benefit dependent ? When they're benefit dependent taxes have to rise to pay for them so the consumer "saving" probably isn't. All we're discussing is do you pay the workman his full price or do you pay the difference to HMG ?
No, it does not ignore it - my argument is with the notion that the availability of cheap labour does not lead to a reduction in prices in one form or anothtaxpayer is forking out top ups.
Sorry SO I can't see how paying shit wages to an immigrant who works in a US tax avoiding multinat which the rest of us then have to subsidise is in any UK citizens interest. What's in our interest is to get the 5% of "unemployable" brits in to jobs, and force the going rate for jobs back up. This not only will cut the benefits bill but will drive greater productivity which ultimately drives higher living standards.
It speaks volumes that the current economic debate is all about low wage jobs and why we need them, rather than the high wage high productivity model our leading parties claim to espouse.
I agree.
But it won't happen all the time that multinational can employ someone who will gladly take the job on the minimum wage because it pays three times what he was being paid to do the job in his own country. All the time living standards are lower in some countries in the EU, which is going to be the case for a long time, there will be a strong incentive for people to come to the UK and undercut local labour. If the low rate is sufficiently low then in-work benefits will mean the government is subsidising the employer in his preference for the cheap immigrant labour. In the later case the country loses twice, once when paying the JSA of the local who did not take the job, and a second time paying the in work benefits of the immigrant employee.
When they see the people that employ them getting richer they are not happy, hence they are saying so..
Maybe other parties are obliquely saying, "get used to it", and that's why they are turning to UKIP
How will voting UKIP make any difference? No country has ever made itself richer by isolating itself from the world.
Globalisation and automation are affecting even skilled labour and will affect it more and more. Complaining about (and even removing) Polish plumbers won't really change that.
Last night I stayed in an excellent hotel. Reception, domestic staff and dining room all clean, helpful, well mannered and efficient. All Polish of course...
I got a good rate, so the benefit to the consumer was certainly passed on. It is rather sad that a bus-ride away there are plenty on the dole who "cannot find work". Cannot get out of bed in the morning morelike!
does it occur to you that you are paying for those people down the road anf fot those Poles in your taxes. Just because the cost isn't visible doesn't mean it isn't there.
Indeed, but we seem content to let people make the "lifestyle choice" of lying in bed at the public expense, and throw up their hands in horror anytime someone suggests something like Workfare. I dont see personally why I should be expected to subsidize out of my hard earned money the lifestyle of someone who can't be bothered to get of his arse and contribute to society. I have no problem with giving people a hand-up, its giving a hand-out I object to.
Fox They do work hard, but obviously you will be more motivated to do a job if Polish which pays above your average Polish salary than one which is minimum wage for a UK worker, we need to toughen up welfare laws and restrict unskilled immigration for which there is no shortage which is the direction in which the Coalition is heading
Last night I stayed in an excellent hotel. Reception, domestic staff and dining room all clean, helpful, well mannered and efficient. All Polish of course...
I got a good rate, so the benefit to the consumer was certainly passed on. It is rather sad that a bus-ride away there are plenty on the dole who "cannot find work". Cannot get out of bed in the morning morelike!
does it occur to you that you are paying for those people down the road anf fot those Poles in your taxes. Just because the cost isn't visible doesn't mean it isn't there.
I would rather keep the Poles and deport the dole bludgers!
The argument about in work benefits is the same for EU and UK citizens. If in work benefits are too high for one then they are too high for the other.
@isam - "Maybe other parties are obliquely saying, "get used to it", and that's why they are turning to UKIP"
This is the challenge that all parties face, including UKIP if it wants to move beyond being a party of protest. The society we have is not a sustainable one if a majority of voters do not believe they have a stake in it because there is no chance of life improving for themselves or their kids. I don't think any of the parties have begun to seriously address this. And if I look at the UKIP leadership I don't see many signs that it is particularly interested in doing so.
It speaks volumes that the current economic debate is all about low wage jobs and why we need them, rather than the high wage high productivity model our leading parties claim to espouse.
The problem here is that it's not easy for the government to create high productivity, and what they can do is mostly quite long-term. British governments have been tinkering around with training and apprenticeships since forever without much obvious to show for it.
Labour like to talk like you can do it the other way around and push wages up to make productivity go up, but it's not clear that works, and it risks back-firing by making low-skilled people unemployable.
Last night I stayed in an excellent hotel. Reception, domestic staff and dining room all clean, helpful, well mannered and efficient. All Polish of course...
I got a good rate, so the benefit to the consumer was certainly passed on. It is rather sad that a bus-ride away there are plenty on the dole who "cannot find work". Cannot get out of bed in the morning morelike!
does it occur to you that you are paying for those people down the road anf fot those Poles in your taxes. Just because the cost isn't visible doesn't mean it isn't there.
I would rather keep the Poles and deport the dole bludgers!
The argument about in work benefits is the same for EU and UK citizens. If in work benefits are too high for one then they are too high for the other.
Unfortunatley for you, that's not an option. The post war consensus is that we look after the difficult cases. So every time an immigrant takes the local's place we pay for both. Likewise when the benefit system lets people rot at home with stunted lives it's us who have decided that is acceptable.
Another week, another smart political move from David Cameron. Or was it? The endlessly trailed and ever-so-long-anticipated speech on immigration finally arrived, and in spite of Mr Cameron’s delivery – which implied unambiguous frankness – was immediately subjected to forensic textual analysis. Instead of putting to rest the question of what he really intended to do about the EU, he launched an instant new wave of doubt and interpretation. For all the Kremlinology about how much of this had been pre-agreed with Brussels and sold in advance to the Liberal Democrats, the most concise judg-ment – oddly enough – came from Ed Miliband: people were not going to believe the Prime Minister’s new promises when he had broken the old ones.
The centre ground is not a political position: it is a mathematical point. It moves all the time in response to the genuine political views that surround it and define its limits. You cannot “represent the centre ground” because it is anti-politics: in itself it represents nothing and nobody. It is the no-man’s-land where people without interest in the real problems of government believe that you can simply split the difference to solve any argument.
This is both naive and dangerous: democracy must be about choosing between conflicting alternatives that are properly explained and defended. It is the function of political leaders to make clear the connection between their actions and the lives of ordinary people – not to give out a briefly seductive message and then hope that nobody bothers to hold them to it.
Fox They do work hard, but obviously you will be more motivated to do a job if Polish which pays above your average Polish salary than one which is minimum wage for a UK worker, we need to toughen up welfare laws and restrict unskilled immigration for which there is no shortage which is the direction in which the Coalition is heading
There is a shortage of unskilled labour in the country. That is why the Europeans come here and find work so easily. The problem is that there is a shortage of unskilled Brits willing to work. Restricting immigration will just drive up labour costs while driving down quality.
Radical reform of the welfare state is required, both in work and out of work benefits. Something for nothing must end.
It speaks volumes that the current economic debate is all about low wage jobs and why we need them, rather than the high wage high productivity model our leading parties claim to espouse.
The problem here is that it's not easy for the government to create high productivity, and what they can do is mostly quite long-term. British governments have been tinkering around with training and apprenticeships since forever without much obvious to show for it.
Labour like to talk like you can do it the other way around and push wages up to make productivity go up, but it's not clear that works, and it risks back-firing by making low-skilled people unemployable.
that's precisely what is happening, we are making the low-skilled unemployable. As tim of this parish often pointed out immigrants tend to be better qualified and take the starter jobs as their first step on the career ladder.
David Miliband was probably closer to the reality than his brother when saying that asking someone on the bottom rung of the ladder to step down was like asking them to drown.
The point you miss is that consumers haven't benefitted from the use of intelligent foreign labour.. things cost more than they used to even though the people who work for the companies are paid the same (or less)
An influx of Eastern European electricians and plumbers has meant the wages of plumbers and electricians has stagnated, but their bosses profit margins have increased big time.
Say we accept your claim about prices and wages, who's getting the saving when the plumbers and electricians are self-employed?
Most are, they are self employed but rely on a kind of zero hours contract arrangement with the companies who get the big jobs.
So it is the boss of the company that gets the saving
They top up their wages if they can get private jobs where they can charge the old rate, but the bread and butter wages have stagnated
But with more labour supply aren't there more companies bidding for the big work? And if that is the case, don't they hdence that the same kind of thing is not happening elsewhere?
doesn't that rather ignore that in driving down prices, you're driving down income, so more people become benefit dependent ? When they're benefit dependent taxes have to rise to pay for them so the consumer "saving" probably isn't. All we're discussing is do you pay the workman his full price or do you pay the difference to HMG ?
No, it does not ignore it - my argument is with the notion that the availability of cheap labour does not lead to a reduction in prices in one form or anothtaxpayer is forking out top ups.
Sorry SO I can't see how paying shit wages to an immigrant who works in a US tax avoiding multinat which the rest of us then have to subsidise is in any UK citizens interest. What's in our interest is to get the 5% of "unemployable" brits in to jobs, and force the going rate for jobs back up. This not only will cut the benefits bill but will drive greater productivity which ultimately drives higher living standards.
It speaks volumes that the current economic debate is all about low wage jobs and why we need them, rather than the high wage high productivity model our leading parties claim to espouse.
"High productivity" only makes sense in a manufacturing, or non-customer-facing business. What does "high productivity" in the consumer-facing service sector mean? Spending less time with each customer?
Fox There is no shortage of unskilled labour as you do not need skills to do it, over the longer term the supply of unskilled jobs will decline, the Coalition's policy that if you refuse a job offer you lose your benefits and you must make applications and attend interviews is a sensible one
The point you miss is that consumers haven't benefitted from the use of intelligent foreign labour.. things cost more than they used to even though the people who work for the companies are paid the same (or less)
An influx of Eastern European electricians and plumbers has meant the wages of plumbers and electricians has stagnated, but their bosses profit margins have increased big time.
Say we accept your claim about prices and wages, who's getting the saving when the plumbers and electricians are self-employed?
Most are, they are self employed but rely on a kind of zero hours contract arrangement with the companies who get the big jobs.
So it is the boss of the company that gets the saving
They top up their wages if they can get private jobs where they can charge the old rate, but the bread and butter wages have stagnated
But with more labour supply aren't there more companies bidding for the big work? And if that is the case, don't they hdence that the same kind of thing is not happening elsewhere?
doesn't that rather ignore that in driving down prices, you're driving down income, so more people become benefit dependent ? When they're benefit dependent taxes have to rise to pay for them so the consumer "saving" probably isn't. All we're discussing is do you pay the workman his full price or do you pay the difference to HMG ?
No, it does not ignore it - my argument is with the notion that the availability of cheap labour does not lead to a reduction in prices in one form or anothtaxpayer is forking out top ups.
Sorry SO I can't see how paying shit wages to an immigrant who works in a US tax avoiding multinat which the rest of us then have to subsidise is in any UK citizens interest. What's in our interest is to get the 5% of "unemployable" brits in to jobs, and force the going rate for jobs back up. This not only will cut the benefits bill but will drive greater productivity which ultimately drives higher living standards.
It speaks volumes that the current economic debate is all about low wage jobs and why we need them, rather than the high wage high productivity model our leading parties claim to espouse.
"High productivity" only makes sense in a manufacturing, or non-customer-facing business. What does "high productivity" in the consumer-facing service sector mean? Spending less time with each customer?
@tnewtondunn: Quote of the day - @edballsmp's new masochism strategy: "I’ve got to be unpopular. A Labour Chx can’t be good unless they are unpopular".
Fox They do work hard, but obviously you will be more motivated to do a job if Polish which pays above your average Polish salary than one which is minimum wage for a UK worker, we need to toughen up welfare laws and restrict unskilled immigration for which there is no shortage which is the direction in which the Coalition is heading
There is a shortage of unskilled labour in the country. That is why the Europeans come here and find work so easily. The problem is that there is a shortage of unskilled Brits willing to work. Restricting immigration will just drive up labour costs while driving down quality.
Radical reform of the welfare state is required, both in work and out of work benefits. Something for nothing must end.
There is plenty of unskilled labour in this country, they just can't be bothered to get of their arses for £6.50/hr when they can get most of that while they play on their xboxes. Problem is if you put the minimum wage to say £8/hr a lot of more of those jobs will become economical to export, and with everyone trying to maintain wage differentials it will probably be as inflationary as hell and very shortly people will have larger numbers on their pay packets but not actually feel any better off, and will retreat once more to their sofas as benefits rise with the cost of living. Sitting on your arse at someone elses expense unless you have a genuine medical reason needs to be a thing of the past.
The point you miss is that consumers haven't benefitted from the use of intelligent foreign labour.. things cost more than they used to even though the people who work for the companies are paid the same (or less)
An influx of Eastern European electricians and plumbers has meant the wages of plumbers and electricians has stagnated, but their bosses profit margins have increased big time.
Say we accept your claim about prices and wages, who's getting the saving when the plumbers and electricians are self-employed?
Most are, th
They top up their wages if they can get private jobs where they can charge the old rate, but the bread and butter wages have stagnated
But with more labour supply aren't there more companies bidding for the big work? And if that is the case, don't they hdence that the same kind of thing is not happening elsewhere?
doesn't that rather ignore that in driving down prices, you're driving down income, so more people become benefit dependent ?
No, it does not ignore it - my argument is with the notion that the availability of cheap labour does not lead to a reduction in prices in one form or anothtaxpayer is forking out top ups.
Sorry SO I can't see how paying shi
It speaks volumes that the current economic debate is all about low wage jobs and why we need them, rather than the high wage high productivity model our leading parties claim to espouse.
"High productivity" only makes sense in a manufacturing, or non-customer-facing business. What does "high productivity" in the consumer-facing service sector mean? Spending less time with each customer?
That's just nonsense. All businesses can create productivity, it's for them to find the right metrics. A customer facing business might decide that more time with customer is the right thing because they can sell more or offer a chargeable service; likewise their competitor might decide less time is better as they can process bulk small orders better via the internet than through as sales agent.
Fox They do work hard, but obviously you will be more motivated to do a job if Polish which pays above your average Polish salary than one which is minimum wage for a UK worker, we need to toughen up welfare laws and restrict unskilled immigration for which there is no shortage which is the direction in which the Coalition is heading
There is a shortage of unskilled labour in the country. That is why the Europeans come here and find work so easily. The problem is that there is a shortage of unskilled Brits willing to work. Restricting immigration will just drive up labour costs while driving down quality.
Radical reform of the welfare state is required, both in work and out of work benefits. Something for nothing must end.
There is plenty of unskilled labour in this country, they just can't be bothered to get of their arses for £6.50/hr when they can get most of that while they play on their xboxes. Problem is if you put the minimum wage to say £8/hr a lot of more of those jobs will become economical to export, and with everyone trying to maintain wage differentials it will probably be as inflationary as hell and very shortly people will have larger numbers on their pay packets but not actually feel any better off, and will retreat once more to their sofas as benefits rise with the cost of living. Sitting on your arse at someone elses expense unless you have a genuine medical reason needs to be a thing of the past.
As long as they can get more for sitting at home than working , there will always be a lot of people who will take that choice. System is to blame not them.
So every time an immigrant takes the local's place
Employment doesn't work like this. People create jobs.
Some people create jobs. If a road sweeper from Bristol is unemployed because he is undercut (or more likely the gentlemen from Poland works harder and complains less) by a road sweeper from Gdansk, then the guy from Bristol is on JSA which the country pays for, and the guy from Gdansk is on on-work benefits, which the country also pays for. If it was an entrepreneur that might be different, but most people aren't one of those.
Fox They do work hard, but obviously you will be more motivated to do a job if Polish which pays above your average Polish salary than one which is minimum wage for a UK worker, we need to toughen up welfare laws and restrict unskilled immigration for which there is no shortage which is the direction in which the Coalition is heading
There is a shortage of unskilled labour in the country. That is why the Europeans come here and find work so easily. The problem is that there is a shortage of unskilled Brits willing to work. Restricting immigration will just drive up labour costs while driving down quality.
Radical reform of the welfare state is required, both in work and out of work benefits. Something for nothing must end.
There is plenty of unskilled labour in this country, they just can't be bothered to get of their arses for £6.50/hr when they can get most of that while they play on their xboxes. Problem is if you put the minimum wage to say £8/hr a lot of more of those jobs will become economical to export, and with everyone trying to maintain wage differentials it will probably be as inflationary as hell and very shortly people will have larger numbers on their pay packets but not actually feel any better off, and will retreat once more to their sofas as benefits rise with the cost of living. Sitting on your arse at someone elses expense unless you have a genuine medical reason needs to be a thing of the past.
As long as they can get more for sitting at home than working , there will always be a lot of people who will take that choice. System is to blame not them.
Ozzy announces more cash for NHS, improvements to roads in the North - sounds like the A1 is finally getting sorted out.
Shame he obviously learned geography from a Roman
“You are going to see major improvements on key roads to the south-west of England, through Norfolk, up through Northumbria,” he said, adding that further details would be revealed on Monday.
The point you miss is that consumers haven't benefitted from the use of intelligent foreign labour.. things cost more than they used to even though the people who work for the companies are paid the same (or less)
An influx of Eastern European electricians and plumbers has
Say we accept your claim about prices and wages, who's getting the saving when the plumbers and electricians are self-employed?
Most are, they are self employed but rely on a kind of zero hours contract arrangement with the companies who get the big jobs.
So it is the boss of the company that gets the saving
They top up their wages if they can get private jobs where they can charge the old rate, but the bread and butter wages have stagnated
But with more labour supply aren't there more companies bidding for the big work? And if that is the case, don't they hdence that the same kind of thing is not happening elsewhere?
doesn't that rather ignore that in driving down prices, you're driving down income, so more people become benefit dependent ?
No, it does not ignore it - my argument is with the notion that the availability of cheap labour does not lead to a reduction in prices in one form or anothtaxpayer is forking out top ups.
Sorry SO I can't see how paying shit wages to an immigrant who works in a US tax avoiding multinat which the rest of us then have to subsidise is in any UK citizens interest. What's in our interest is to get the 5% of "unemployable" brits in to jobs, and force the going rate for jobs back up. This not only will cut the benefits bill but will drive greater productivity which ultimately drives higher living standards.
It speaks volumes that the current economic debate is all about low wage jobs and why we need them, rather than the high wage high productivity model our leading parties claim to espouse.
"High productivity" only makes sense in a manufacturing, or non-customer-facing business. What does "high productivity" in the consumer-facing service sector mean? Spending less time with each customer?
High productivity in the service sector does make sense.
On a hotel reception someone who can check in a customer in half the time due to efficiency will benefit both employer and also customer.
If they are reliable and punctual in attendance rather than prone to "pull a sickie" because they were out on the tiles the night before, the decision on who to employ is a no-brainer.
So every time an immigrant takes the local's place
Employment doesn't work like this. People create jobs.
Yes people create jobs, but the price and availability of labour determines how that demand is satisfied and a limitless supply of better qulaified people keeps wages low, employers lazy and a huge social problem on our doorstep for which we all have to pay.
That said it might have been poor editing by the Guardian judging by a later para:
"Balls told the programme that Labour would put an extra £2.5bn a year into the NHS, partly paid for by its mansion tax on homes worth more than £2bn."
Comments
But more typically it's taxes/obligatory payments that have gone up - that's what the government doesn't want to tell us (whether it's rates, taxes, social obligations, pension contributions, whatever) they all have to come out of the revenues that a company generates.
For instance, people complain that petrol prices haven't come down very much (c. 20p from 138p to 120p). However, of the 138p, from memory around 85p is tax, so the fall in petrol prices related to the *oil companies* is about 18p/55p or pretty close to the 1/3 fall in oil prices in GBp terms.
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/2014-f1-season-review.html
So it is the boss of the company that gets the saving
They top up their wages if they can get private jobs where they can charge the old rate, but the bread and butter wages have stagnated
My instinct is that both of the latter are over-rated. But I don't recall a case where the difference between the national polls and the apparent seat retention due to Lib Dem cockroach (TM Penny Mordaunt) tendencies
And then fall out with JK Rowling over it.
You are right. It was right not to subsidise our dying ancient industries; the people who object to polish plumbers were happy to benefit from polish open cast coal.
Likewise the selfish nimbys who object to railways were happy to benefit from the desicration of our landscape in places like Lancashire and South Wales which gave them the coal for their electricity.
However Cameron has struck the right balance in saying people should have jobs to come here to and not have automatic rights to benefits.
If we were in the ever closing union of the Eurozone it might nbe different but we are not and never will be - so the logic for different rules is easy to see.
I could not have written it better. The UKIPman is the plumber who comes to your house, does his job well, moaning against the whole world and then says he will cut out the VAT if you pay cash !
I would imagine 25% of bed and breakfast owners are also UKIP supporters. If theoretically UKIP ever came to power it would not be easy to pass laws to prefer tham. Maybe, abolish income tax or lower it for "working" self-employed ! Otherwise, they will still moan !
The answer to the WWC dilemma is simple. Most of them were already voting Conservative. In the past, they were called the Essex Man.
for once we agree, we should have let the banks go under.
(I'm hoping Ms Mordaunt will be a Good Egg and lose to UKIP. 33-1!)
A lot of those are down to Nissan and Honda proving that the UK workforce has the skills and capabilities to make volume manufacturing profitable (with the right management and systems).
I think "some jobs" is rather unfair to Thatcher's achievement.
As a Labour supporter, I am beginning to like FPTP [ though, of course, it is totally indefensible
Murphy is the Man !!!
doesn't that rather ignore that in driving down prices, you're driving down income, so more people become benefit dependent ? When they're benefit dependent taxes have to rise to pay for them so the consumer "saving" probably isn't. All we're discussing is do you pay the workman his full price or do you pay the difference to HMG ?
PS. I just got an ad through my door with a sticker to attach to the fridge with a number for a plumber at the top and a number for a lawyer at the bottom. I'll know who to call if I ever get my drains clogged up with body parts.
For small jobs like that I dare say there hasn't been a massive change in price, but that is not the kind of work that pays the bills for plumbers/electricians
Shinwell, intent on the destruction of the Fitzwilliams and "the privileged rich", decreed that the mining would continue to the back door of Wentworth, the family's East Front. What followed saw the mining of 99 acres (400,000 m2) of lawns and woods, the renowned formal gardens and the show-piece pink shale driveway (a by-product of the family's collieries). Ancient trees were uprooted and the debris of earth and rubble was piled 50 ft (15 m) high in front of the family's living quarters.[25]
Local opinion supported the Earl. Joe Hall, Yorkshire branch President of the National Union of Mineworkers said that the "miners in this area will go to almost any length rather than see Wentworth Woodhouse destroyed. To many mining communities it is sacred ground" - in an industry known for harsh treatment of workers, the Fitzwilliams were respected employers known for treating their employees well. The Yorkshire branch later threatened a strike over the Government's plans for Wentworth, and Joe Hall wrote personally to Clement Attlee in a futile attempt to stop the mining.[25] This spontaneous local activism, founded on the genuine popularity of the Fitzwilliam family amongst locals, was dismissed in Whitehall as "intrigue" sponsored by the Earl
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wentworth_Woodhouse#Destruction_of_the_estate
Otherwise, the party will wither away eventually. SDP did ! That's why they had to create the LDP.
I will not be surprised if Carswell is your party's sole representative in the next Parliament - a lonely and forlorn figure on the opposition benches. Will he even want Leadership of the Party?
Still, he's a thinker. He will have plenty of time to think.
Why do you think wages for the poorest are going down, while GDP goes up or stands still?
If you want to frame a bet on UKIP only getting one MP I am all ears
I'm fairly well-off. I'm not adversely economically affected by mass immigration. But, I can see that a society in which the economic burden of mass immigration is borne by people by people lower down the food chain, while the benefits accrue to people like me and upwards, will be an increasingly tense and bitter one.
Correct. I nearly spat out my bacon sandwich when I read that.
We were right not to subsidise the dying industries. There were however no compulsory mining redundancies, it was all voluntary after individual pit votes and the compensation was massive - more than MG-Rover workers got under the total mess Labour made of the rump British car industry. (Indeed BMW gave £500 million which would have been a massive payoff but Labours chosen management wasted it all.)
And there were large grants and tax breaks and whatever for new industries to set up in those areas.
And as I said before the associated point about complaints about imported labour is the same argument abouit imported coal. The issue is about 'benefit cheats'.
But noverwhelmingly the biggest issue is the one about our own people languiashing on benefots. The issue is of bad education bad training bad motivation. We have the available people - Why do emplyers not want them and why are they so badly motivated for work?
I suggest to everyone that it is socialism which for whatever reason always campaigns against restricting benefits mand perpetuating the problem. And of course they are soft on education as well.
And lets not forget that for crude selfish reasons Farage and UKIP jumped on the 'spare bedroom benefit' issue.
But sometimes you need to start again to build a new working culture. Ford would have struggled to turn around the business: they had weak management, poorly sited facilities with an inefficient product flow and a long history of mistrust (on both side) with the workers representatives. Nissan, starting with a greenfield site, could invest in a optimised factory with modern equipment and build a collaborative culture based on just-in-time and six sigma principles
Why have the wages of the poorest gone down while GDP goes up do you think?
I think its because employers are using cheap labour from EU migrants to increase their profit margin without passing on the benefit to the consumer
Chckens should not be counted!
@Sean_F
UKIP's vote is more concentrated than that of the Alliance, but there will be relatively few UKIP wins in 2015.
"Here Comes That Song Again"
Here comes that song again
They're playing that song again
I guess it will never end
They're playing it again
Here comes that song again
Here comes that old ache within
The story of UKIP begins
They're telling it again
I'll have to leave
I can't bear it anymore
There must be a place where
They'll play a different score
Here comes that song again
The jukebox must have found a friend
My heart will never mend
They're playing it again
That old song of UKIP vanishing or getting nil MP's is getting pretty desperate from the Lab/lib/Cons among us. Wake up and smell the coffee hombres, UKIP is here to stay, so take your weird dreams and stuff 'em.
It knows what it doesn't like. But we have heard very little about what they would do instead. When they try, they trip up over Nigel Farage's ego. WAG Tax, repatriation, NHS privatisation - confusion aplenty in the UKIP ranks.
They have got a couple of months to put together a coherent case for Govt. Or they are going to get ripped to shreds. There are many, many people with very differing political outlooks and objectives who would love to see UKIP come a cropper. And there's only so long that Farage can cry "Infamy! Infamy! They've all got it in fer me!" before people say "Yeah - but answer the question mate...."
Farage is a middle order politician. He's the Junior Minister you would put your money on doing Something Really Stupid and being the first to have to resign from government. The big surprise of May 2015 may yet be the Unravelling of Nigel Farage's Credibility.....
Are you sure you know what a "libertarian party" looks like? The UKIP of five years ago to a degree but certainly not today. I'd join one if it existed. And UKIP is clearly to the left of the Conservatives on many economic issues.
Hardly to the right of the Conservatives on social issues either. UKIP accept gay marriage, for example, which is a line which could have swayed my vote. I'd argue that as they've grown and lost their radical streak UKIP have become much less appealing to those of us who want less State.
More later!
There has been wage restraint because people want to keep in theor jobs after the recession.
In essence, the argument is "It's not fair that our voters have switched" followed by a temper tantrum and name-calling.
So you think UKIP is what, an equivalent to the TUC, with a political agenda but no direct interest in power? I think that would come as news to the legions of the People' Army.....
It speaks volumes that the current economic debate is all about low wage jobs and why we need them, rather than the high wage high productivity model our leading parties claim to espouse.
Why have the wages of the poorest gone down while GDP goes up do you think?
I think its because employers are using cheap labour from EU migrants to increase their profit margin without passing on the benefit to the consumer
You do not have to intellectually superior to see a business opportunity in the situation you describe. It is pretty obvious that if established service providers are profiteering there are bound to be significant openings for newcomers. No-one likes to pay more than they have to for something.
Putting that to one side, would you seriously describe your mates as the poorest? As tradesmen that would be highly unusual whatever the competition they face from immigrants. As Mike discusses (and as Socrates also set out) UKIP voters do not tend to be the poorest in society.
Putting that to one side, would you seriously describe your mates as the poorest? As tradesmen that would be highly unusual whatever the competition they face from immigrants. As Mike discusses (and as Socrates also set out) UKIP voters do not tend to be the poorest in society.
You are right, I wouldn't say my mates are the poorest at all , and I didn't mean to make out that they were (although the poorest are also affected in the way I describe)
But it seems that people are saying to those who were used to earning £35-40k a year, and had plans for the future that involved that pay increasing, that they shouldn't mind their standard of living stagnating or falling.. or working longer hours for the same pay. That's just not how it pans out in reality when they have a standard of living that they are providing for their family
When they see the people that employ them getting richer they are not happy, hence they are saying so..
Maybe other parties are obliquely saying, "get used to it", and that's why they are turning to UKIP
I got a good rate, so the benefit to the consumer was certainly passed on. It is rather sad that a bus-ride away there are plenty on the dole who "cannot find work". Cannot get out of bed in the morning morelike!
How will voting UKIP make any difference? No country has ever made itself richer by isolating itself from the world.
Globalisation and automation are affecting even skilled labour and will affect it more and more. Complaining about (and even removing) Polish plumbers won't really change that.
The argument about in work benefits is the same for EU and UK citizens. If in work benefits are too high for one then they are too high for the other.
This is the challenge that all parties face, including UKIP if it wants to move beyond being a party of protest. The society we have is not a sustainable one if a majority of voters do not believe they have a stake in it because there is no chance of life improving for themselves or their kids. I don't think any of the parties have begun to seriously address this. And if I look at the UKIP leadership I don't see many signs that it is particularly interested in doing so.
Labour like to talk like you can do it the other way around and push wages up to make productivity go up, but it's not clear that works, and it risks back-firing by making low-skilled people unemployable.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11261407/David-Cameron-is-all-fine-speeches-and-no-action.html
Radical reform of the welfare state is required, both in work and out of work benefits. Something for nothing must end.
David Miliband was probably closer to the reality than his brother when saying that asking someone on the bottom rung of the ladder to step down was like asking them to drown.
What does "high productivity" in the consumer-facing service sector mean?
Spending less time with each customer?
...but they can be shit, and unpopular.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/nov/30/george-osborne-billions-extra-nhs-funding
Ozzy announces more cash for NHS, improvements to roads in the North - sounds like the A1 is finally getting sorted out.
Shame he obviously learned geography from a Roman
“You are going to see major improvements on key roads to the south-west of England, through Norfolk, up through Northumbria,” he said, adding that further details would be revealed on Monday.
On a hotel reception someone who can check in a customer in half the time due to efficiency will benefit both employer and also customer.
If they are reliable and punctual in attendance rather than prone to "pull a sickie" because they were out on the tiles the night before, the decision on who to employ is a no-brainer.
"Balls told the programme that Labour would put an extra £2.5bn a year into the NHS, partly paid for by its mansion tax on homes worth more than £2bn."