@alstewitn: More harm was done to foxes in the @edballsmp interview with @JPonpolitics than has ever been done by the Hampshire Hunt. #shot #shot #shot
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."
In his dreams, mansion tax on homes over £2m will make about £300m unless he is going to charge 5 times what he told everyone he is going to charge, or drops the threshold to £1m. Otherwise he isn't doing anything that Osborne is doing.
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 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.
If he's being undercut then the cost of hiring just dropped, which makes business viable that didn't used to be.
Indigo/MalcolmG JSA pays about £3,000 a year, the minimum wage about £11,000 a year and you can still claim housing benefit if in work, the issue was more to do with tax and losing all your benefits if you take part time, contract work, universal credit and taking the lowest earners out of tax should help with that
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 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.
If he's being undercut then the cost of hiring just dropped, which makes business viable that didn't used to be.
Nope, it means the business is paying him the minimum wage, the guy from Bristol wasn't prepared to do it from less than £8 which the company wasn't prepared to pay. The immigrants are taking the jobs from a lot of low skilled workers because they are generally better skilled, generally a hell of a lot less precious about what jobs are beneath them, they are prepared to start at the bottom. and they will put up with a low standard of living (eg. dormatory living) for a year or two to get into a business on the first rung of the ladder. Once they are in the job they complain less and work harder. All of that is good for the business, but its not good for the country having to pay for the guy still sitting at home in front of the TV.
We really need an economy where local people get off their arses and start jobs at the entry level and work hard, but we have been selling these people a bill of goods for years (yes Labour we are looking at you) that they can sit at home and have an "unemployed lifestyle" and that is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. When you combine that with the "all must have prizes" educational environment, the (until Gove) falling standards of education, you have a perfect storm for lazy sods sitting on the couch while hard working immigrants do the work.
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.
If we have a shortage of unskilled labour why are wages not rising as demand outstrips supply?
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 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.
If he's being undercut then the cost of hiring just dropped, which makes business viable that didn't used to be.
just a bollocks way to run an economy Edmund.
It should be bloke from Gdansk stays in Gdansk since Poland needs ambiitious skilled people too. Bristol guy's boss notices his labour is getting pricey and hard to obtain so buys a chunk of street sweeping machines. 3 blokes can now do the work of 4 but need to be paid slighltly more as they've upskilled. Fourth bloke gets call from competitor as they're finding it difficult to get people. productivity goes up, price to customer is stable workers get paid more, Government gets more tax income.
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 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.
If he's being undercut then the cost of hiring just dropped, which makes business viable that didn't used to be.
just a bollocks way to run an economy Edmund.
It should be bloke from Gdansk stays in Gdansk since Poland needs ambiitious skilled people too. Bristol guy's boss notices his labour is getting pricey and hard to obtain so buys a chunk of street sweeping machines. 3 blokes can now do the work of 4 but need to be paid slighltly more as they've upskilled. Fourth bloke gets call from competitor as they're finding it difficult to get people. productivity goes up, price to customer is stable workers get paid more, Government gets more tax income.
Out of interest, economically that argument would work in exactly the same way if you substituted "North of England" for "Poland" and "London" for "Bristol". Do you think it would be good for employment and productivity (in both areas, if I'm correctly understanding what you're saying about what Poland needs) to ban people from the North of England from taking jobs in London?
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 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.
If he's being undercut then the cost of hiring just dropped, which makes business viable that didn't used to be.
just a bollocks way to run an economy Edmund.
It should be bloke from Gdansk stays in Gdansk since Poland needs ambiitious skilled people too. Bristol guy's boss notices his labour is getting pricey and hard to obtain so buys a chunk of street sweeping machines. 3 blokes can now do the work of 4 but need to be paid slighltly more as they've upskilled. Fourth bloke gets call from competitor as they're finding it difficult to get people. productivity goes up, price to customer is stable workers get paid more, Government gets more tax income.
Out of interest, economically that argument would work in exactly the same way if you substituted "North of England" for "Poland" and "London" for "Bristol". Do you think it would be good for employment and productivity (in both areas, if I'm correctly understanding what you're saying about what Poland needs) to ban people from the North of England from taking jobs in London?
No it doesn't since the UK is a polity and you are simply distributing people within the same state\economic unit. You are adding extra people in to the same unit. I don't have a problem with the extra people if we need the skills or the labour.
Your issue on London is actually a seperate economic problem, which is how do you handle an overdominant region and the distortions it creates ? France has the same problem with Paris.
@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.
Well fair enough, but I am not trying to convince you to vote UKIP, just explaining the way I see things
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 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.
If he's being undercut then the cost of hiring just dropped, which makes business viable that didn't used to be.
just a bollocks way to run an economy Edmund.
It should be bloke from Gdansk stays in Gdansk since Poland needs ambiitious skilled people too. Bristol guy's boss notices his labour is getting pricey and hard to obtain so buys a chunk of street sweeping machines. 3 blokes can now do the work of 4 but need to be paid slighltly more as they've upskilled. Fourth bloke gets call from competitor as they're finding it difficult to get people. productivity goes up, price to customer is stable workers get paid more, Government gets more tax income.
Out of interest, economically that argument would work in exactly the same way if you substituted "North of England" for "Poland" and "London" for "Bristol". Do you think it would be good for employment and productivity (in both areas, if I'm correctly understanding what you're saying about what Poland needs) to ban people from the North of England from taking jobs in London?
No it doesn't since the UK is a polity and you are simply distributing people within the same state\economic unit. You are adding extra people in to the same unit. I don't have a problem with the extra people if we need the skills or the labour.
Your issue on London is actually a seperate economic problem, which is how do you handle an overdominant region and the distortions it creates ? France has the same problem with Paris.
None of your arguments had to do with polities or economic units. You had an unemployed guy in [London|Bristol] getting out-competed by a guy from [Newcastle|Gdansk], and you thought it would be good for [Newcastle|Gdansk] to keep the guy there building their economy, and good for [London|Bristol] to restrict the labour market to local people to force employers to pay more, which you thought would result in better skills and productivity.
If the argument's right, it's right in both cases. Newcastle would benefit from ambitious workers not leaving, and if London had to spend more on labour they'd mechanize faster.
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 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.
If he's being undercut then the cost of hiring just dropped, which makes business viable that didn't used to be.
just a bollocks way to run an economy Edmund.
It should be bloke from Gdansk stays in Gdansk since Poland needs ambiitious skilled people too. Bristol guy's boss notices his labour is getting pricey and hard to obtain so buys a chunk of street sweeping machines. 3 blokes can now do the work of 4 but need to be paid slighltly more as they've upskilled. Fourth bloke gets call from competitor as they're finding it difficult to get people. productivity goes up, price to customer is stable workers get paid more, Government gets more tax income.
Out of interest, economically that argument would work in exactly the same way if you y a seperate economic problem, which is how do you handle an overdominant region and the distortions it creates ? France has the same problem with Paris.
None of your arguments had to do with polities or economic units. You had an unemployed guy in [London|Bristol] getting out-competed by a guy from [Newcastle|Gdansk], and you thought it would be good for [Newcastle|Gdansk] to keep the guy there building their economy, and good for [London|Bristol] to restrict the labour market to local people to force employers to pay more, which you thought would result in better skills and productivity.
Actually all my argument had to do with polity. We started this off on immigation which means one person moving from one country to another.
You introduced internal migration in your last post. Which I'm quite happy to discuss but it is different from external migration as I pointed out.
Actually all my argument had to do with polity. We started this off on immigation which means one person moving from one country to another.
You introduced internal migration in your last post. Which I'm quite happy to discuss but it is different from external migration as I pointed out.
You're making what purport to be economic arguments, and the economic forces at work here are the same.
No they're not. You don't want to accept our society has given a commitment to the least well off to look after them with a social safety net until they find employment. If you keep restricting their chances of finding that employment by adding new people in to the system you condemn them to a life of poverty. As some posters have pointed out this is not just all one way, the social deal has two sides the benefit recipient has to do their part and may in some case have to be forced in to it. But the basic parameter remains the same society has given an open commitment to these citizens and every time they miss out on a job we all pay for it soemtimes twice over.
Mr Alanbrooke seems to think that there is more productivity gains in the service sector. How do you gain more productivity out of serving of coffee and selling dresses?
On the other hand it would be interesting to see how the massive investment we have seen in our car and car engine industry could cut jobs further. Such investment has created jobs, well paid jobs, in places like Merseyside and Birmingham and Coventry. All that investment has come from overseas. The jobs of course could easily go overseas if we priced taxed quotad or tarriffed our selves out of them.
The growth in the service sector - a sector serving the well paid workers in places like our car industy - is precisely because workers have disposable income and leisure available to spend in the service sector.
Mr Alanbrooke seems to think that there is more productivity gains in the service sector. How do you gain more productivity out of serving of coffee and selling dresses?
On the other hand it would be interesting to see how the massive investment we have seen in our car and car engine industry could cut jobs further. Such investment has created jobs, well paid jobs, in places like Merseyside and Birmingham and Coventry. All that investment has come from overseas. The jobs of course could easily go overseas if we priced taxed quotad or tarriffed our selves out of them.
The growth in the service sector - a sector serving the well paid workers in places like our car industy - is precisely because workers have disposable income and leisure available to spend in the service sector.
How do you gain more productivity out of serving of coffee and selling dresses?
Jesus the fact that you can even ask that questions shows you're an economic illiterate.
Ever heard of the internet ? click and collect ? self-scan machines?
Actually all my argument had to do with polity. We started this off on immigation which means one person moving from one country to another.
You introduced internal migration in your last post. Which I'm quite happy to discuss but it is different from external migration as I pointed out.
You're making what purport to be economic arguments, and the economic forces at work here are the same.
No they're not. You don't want to accept our society has given a commitment to the least well off to look after them with a social safety net until they find employment. If you keep restricting their chances of finding that employment by adding new people in to the system you condemn them to a life of poverty. As some posters have pointed out this is not just all one way, the social deal has two sides the benefit recipient has to do their part and may in some case have to be forced in to it. But the basic parameter remains the same society has given an open commitment to these citizens and every time they miss out on a job we all pay for it soemtimes twice over.
Lots of new jobs are being created and most are going to native workers. Unemployment is falling. The fact remains that many native brits turn their noses up at some jobs.
Actually all my argument had to do with polity. We started this off on immigation which means one person moving from one country to another.
You introduced internal migration in your last post. Which I'm quite happy to discuss but it is different from external migration as I pointed out.
You're making what purport to be economic arguments, and the economic forces at work here are the same.
No they're not. You don't want to accept our society has given a commitment to the least well off to look after them with a social safety net until they find employment. If you keep restricting their chances of finding that employment by adding new people in to the system you condemn them to a life of poverty. As some posters have pointed out this is not just all one way, the social deal has two sides the benefit recipient has to do their part and may in some case have to be forced in to it. But the basic parameter remains the same society has given an open commitment to these citizens and every time they miss out on a job we all pay for it soemtimes twice over.
Lots of new jobs are being created and most are going to native workers. Unemployment is falling. The fact remains that many native brits turn their noses up at some jobs.
Yeah you sort of miss the issue on wage growth which is why Osborne's figures don't add up. Stick to trolling kippers.
Mr Alanbrooke seems to think that there is more productivity gains in the service sector. How do you gain more productivity out of serving of coffee and selling dresses?
Actually the coffee is a great example of somewhere there's room for a service-sector productivity gain. In Japan, you used to buy your coffee from a coffee shop where the employee would operate the machine and make your coffee. Now they sell it in convenience stores, and they give you a cup and a little pod of coffee, and you operate the machine yourself. This means fewer people are needed per coffee, and the productivity of the people working in the shop increases.
BTW, note how this breaks the assumption in Indigo's street-sweeper example up-thread that the mechanized jobs will be higher-skilled and result in higher pay locally. The convenience store employee is less skilled at coffee-making than the person in the legacy coffee shop, and probably gets paid less. (I guess there may be some higher-skilled coffee machinery design jobs in whatever country they make the machines, but it's probably not Japan...)
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 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.
If he's being undercut then the cost of hiring just dropped, which makes business viable that didn't used to be.
just a bollocks way to run an economy Edmund.
It should be bloke from Gdansk stays in Gdansk since Poland needs ambiitious skilled people too. Bristol guy's boss notices his labour is getting pricey and hard to obtain so buys a chunk of street sweeping machines. 3 blokes can now do the work of 4 but need to be paid slighltly more as they've upskilled. Fourth bloke gets call from competitor as they're finding it difficult to get people. productivity goes up, price to customer is stable workers get paid more, Government gets more tax income.
Polish workers struggle if their economy is part of the Euro recession - they move to where work is. Their workers will return as their economy improves.
Your fourth man moves to selling cups of coffee. Other men find the previously suitable work for them has been taken away by technology. Our balance of payments widens because of all the street sweeping machines we import. The quality of our street cleaning declines as the machines are not really suitable and constantly break down because you refuse to import the Polish mechanics to service 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 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.
If he's being undercut then the cost of hiring just dropped, which makes business viable that didn't used to be.
just a bollocks way to run an economy Edmund.
It should be bloke from Gdansk stays in Gdansk since Poland needs ambiitious skilled people too. Bristol guy's boss notices his labour is getting pricey and hard to obtain so buys a chunk of street sweeping machines. 3 blokes can now do the work of 4 but need to be paid slighltly more as they've upskilled. Fourth bloke gets call from competitor as they're finding it difficult to get people. productivity goes up, price to customer is stable workers get paid more, Government gets more tax income.
Polish workers struggle if their economy is part of the Euro recession - they move to where work is. Their workers will return as their economy improves.
Your fourth man moves to selling cups of coffee. Other men find the previously suitable work for them has been taken away by technology. Our balance of payments widens because of all the street sweeping machines we import. The quality of our street cleaning declines as the machines are not really suitable and constantly break down because you refuse to import the Polish mechanics to service them.
you've proved you're an economic illiterate, don't keep making it worse.
It's odd that Ukip are getting a much worse press than the Greens. One is accused of wanting to taken us back to the 1950s and the other actually wants us to take us back to the 1650s - that golden age before industry. When we made friends with Bubonic plague, turnips were the staple diet, many died before reaching five years old, and the cows died of old age
Mr Alanbrooke seems to think that there is more productivity gains in the service sector. How do you gain more productivity out of serving of coffee and selling dresses?
On the other hand it would be interesting to see how the massive investment we have seen in our car and car engine industry could cut jobs further. Such investment has created jobs, well paid jobs, in places like Merseyside and Birmingham and Coventry. All that investment has come from overseas. The jobs of course could easily go overseas if we priced taxed quotad or tarriffed our selves out of them.
The growth in the service sector - a sector serving the well paid workers in places like our car industy - is precisely because workers have disposable income and leisure available to spend in the service sector.
How do you gain more productivity out of serving of coffee and selling dresses?
Jesus the fact that you can even ask that questions shows you're an economic illiterate.
Ever heard of the internet ? click and collect ? self-scan machines?
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.
Indeed.
And not just the economic burden but the social burden as well.
We've created a society based upon the glorification of greed and conspicuous consumption.
As we cannot afford this "because I'm worth it" mentality the head of the economic snake is now steadily swallowing its tail.
With the result that society becomes increasingly unequal and we now measure debt in trillions.
It's odd that Ukip are getting a much worse press than the Greens. One is accused of wanting to taken us back to the 1950s and the other actually wants us to take us back to the 1650s - that golden age before industry. When we made friends with Bubonic plague, turnips were the staple diet, many died before reaching five years old, and the cows died of old age
And windmills were cutting edge technology.
Ah! But you see, the Greens are of the left and are bosom pals with most of the writers and columnists of the MSM, and that makes all the difference.
Mr Alanbroke there is only one arse around here and its not me. One day you will wake up and realise that people go to coffee shops tea shops and cafes for more than coffee. Its the seat the wifi the newspaper the company and the service as well as something a bit different than from a vandiong machine. As soon as you automate it (which really you cannot do as the machines need constant cleaning and then there are all the fancy derivatives and pretty patterns on the froth) or rely on 2 people not 3 then the business goes through the floor. Even motorway service stations offer 'costa' style coffee areas, although if you want to you can usually pour your own stuff along with the rubber chicken and chips.
You can of course go to WH Smith for a paper cup of coffee and spill it outside in the rain.
It's odd that Ukip are getting a much worse press than the Greens. One is accused of wanting to taken us back to the 1950s and the other actually wants us to take us back to the 1650s - that golden age before industry. When we made friends with Bubonic plague, turnips were the staple diet, many died before reaching five years old, and the cows died of old age
And windmills were cutting edge technology.
Ah! But you see, the Greens are of the left and are bosom pals with most of the writers and columnists of the MSM, and that makes all the difference.
I am sure that is part of it, the other is that no one sees them as a threat, I mean they have Brighton Pavillion, but you mention that and people tend to roll their eyes and ask what you expect "in a place like that". They wouldn't admit it, but Heywood & Middleton was probably a huge wakeup call to LAB and CON, UKIP suddenly went from a party to be humored to a party that might take more than 1-2 seats off them. If the greens start tearing 10k off Labour majorities I am sure they will become a target pretty damn quick. If you want to get a politicians attention, go for his majority ;-)
Actually all my argument had to do with polity. We started this off on immigation which means one person moving from one country to another.
You introduced internal migration in your last post. Which I'm quite happy to discuss but it is different from external migration as I pointed out.
You're making what purport to be economic arguments, and the economic forces at work here are the same.
No they're not. You don't want to accept our society has given a commitment to the least well off to look after them with a social safety net until they find employment. If you keep restricting their chances of finding that employment by adding new people in to the system you condemn them to a life of poverty. As some posters have pointed out this is not just all one way, the social deal has two sides the benefit recipient has to do their part and may in some case have to be forced in to it. But the basic parameter remains the same society has given an open commitment to these citizens and every time they miss out on a job we all pay for it soemtimes twice over.
Lots of new jobs are being created and most are going to native workers. Unemployment is falling. The fact remains that many native brits turn their noses up at some jobs.
Yeah you sort of miss the issue on wage growth which is why Osborne's figures don't add up. Stick to trolling kippers.
Where is inflation? Are you trying to pretend unemployment is not falling? Are you trying to pretend hundreds of thousands of jobs have not been created? You can ignore all the jobs if you like but they are there. Stick to inventing to preserve your facile economic opinions.
Mr Alanbroke there is only one arse around here and its not me. One day you will wake up and realise that people go to coffee shops tea shops and cafes for more than coffee. Its the seat the wifi the newspaper the company and the service as well as something a bit different than from a vandiong machine. As soon as you automate it (which really you cannot do as the machines need constant cleaning and then there are all the fancy derivatives and pretty patterns on the froth) or rely on 2 people not 3 then the business goes through the floor. Even motorway service stations offer 'costa' style coffee areas, although if you want to you can usually pour your own stuff along with the rubber chicken and chips.
You can of course go to WH Smith for a paper cup of coffee and spill it outside in the rain.
it's the razor sharp ripostes which so impress me.
It's odd that Ukip are getting a much worse press than the Greens. One is accused of wanting to taken us back to the 1950s and the other actually wants us to take us back to the 1650s - that golden age before industry. When we made friends with Bubonic plague, turnips were the staple diet, many died before reaching five years old, and the cows died of old age
And windmills were cutting edge technology.
I'm a Green and I don't want to take us back to the 1650s, and I can't think of any that I've met who do.
I thought you were a cut above the worst of the trolls on here?
Actually all my argument had to do with polity. We started this off on immigation which means one person moving from one country to another.
You introduced internal migration in your last post. Which I'm quite happy to discuss but it is different from external migration as I pointed out.
You're making what purport to be economic arguments, and the economic forces at work here are the same.
No they're not. You don't want to accept our society has given a commitment to the least well off to look after them with a social safety net until they find employment. If you keep restricting their chances of finding that employment by adding new people in to the system you condemn them to a life of poverty. As some posters have pointed out this is not just all one way, the social deal has two sides the benefit recipient has to do their part and may in some case have to be forced in to it. But the basic parameter remains the same society has given an open commitment to these citizens and every time they miss out on a job we all pay for it soemtimes twice over.
Lots of new jobs are being created and most are going to native workers. Unemployment is falling. The fact remains that many native brits turn their noses up at some jobs.
Yeah you sort of miss the issue on wage growth which is why Osborne's figures don't add up. Stick to trolling kippers.
Where is inflation? Are you trying to pretend unemployment is not falling? Are you trying to pretend hundreds of thousands of jobs have not been created? You can ignore all the jobs if you like but they are there. Stick to inventing to preserve your facile economic opinions.
there is no wage inflation, it's why real wages have been falling for most of the last 6 years. Osborne's figure fail because he has assumed wage growth and there isn't any, thus tax yields are off target and we're still subsidising low incomes.
Actually all my argument had to do with polity. We started this off on immigation which means one person moving from one country to another.
You introduced internal migration in your last post. Which I'm quite happy to discuss but it is different from external migration as I pointed out.
You're making what purport to be economic arguments, and the economic forces at work here are the same.
No they're not. You don't want to accept our society has given a commitment to the least well off to look after them with a social safety net until they find employment. If you keep restricting their chances of finding that employment by adding new people in to the system you condemn them to a life of poverty. As some posters have pointed out this is not just all one way, the social deal has two sides the benefit recipient has to do their part and may in some case have to be forced in to it. But the basic parameter remains the same society has given an open commitment to these citizens and every time they miss out on a job we all pay for it soemtimes twice over.
Lots of new jobs are being created and most are going to native workers. Unemployment is falling. The fact remains that many native brits turn their noses up at some jobs.
Yeah you sort of miss the issue on wage growth which is why Osborne's figures don't add up. Stick to trolling kippers.
Where is inflation? Are you trying to pretend unemployment is not falling? Are you trying to pretend hundreds of thousands of jobs have not been created? You can ignore all the jobs if you like but they are there. Stick to inventing to preserve your facile economic opinions.
there is no wage inflation, it's why real wages have been falling for most of the last 6 years. Osborne's figure fail because he has assumed wage growth and there isn't any, thus tax yields are off target and we're still subsidising low incomes.
There is no wage inflation because there is realism about the jobs market. The govt for instance are sacking civil servants and local govt people and (because of increased efficiancy and productivity) they are sharing back office jobs. Despite this net new jobs are being created. Because of this and external factors like oil we see low price inflation.
Tax revenues never matched what Brown expected in his day to sustain his spending. The UK is not generating the revenues expected for a long time.
Do you have to be a vegan? Would you like to ban animal experimentation even for drug research? Would you have been happy for coal mining to go ahead to power the industrial revolution?
On more realistic quesions ... Do you support fracking? Do you support nuclear power?
The point I'm making is that Ukip are defined by the most extreme cases not by the Isams of this world. Remember any Kipper speaks for all, and the most extreme get the headlines. That doesn't happen with the Greens or does it?
Actually all my argument had to do with polity. We started this off on immigation which means one person moving from one country to another.
You introduced internal migration in your last post. Which I'm quite happy to discuss but it is different from external migration as I pointed out.
You're making what purport to be economic arguments, and the economic forces at work here are the same.
No they're not. You don't want to accept our society has given a commitment to the least well off to look after them with a social safety net until they find employment. If you keep restricting their chances of finding that employment by adding new people in to the system you condemn them to a life of poverty. As some posters have pointed out this is not just all one way, the social deal has two sides the benefit recipient has to do their part and may in some case have to be forced in to it. But the basic parameter remains the same society has given an open commitment to these citizens and every time they miss out on a job we all pay for it soemtimes twice over.
Lots of new jobs are being created and most are going to native workers. Unemployment is falling. The fact remains that many native brits turn their noses up at some jobs.
Yeah you sort of miss the issue on wage growth which is why Osborne's figures don't add up. Stick to trolling kippers.
Where is inflation? Are you trying to pretend unemployment is not falling? Are you trying to pretend hundreds of thousands of jobs have not been created? You can ignore all the jobs if you like but they are there. Stick to inventing to preserve your facile economic opinions.
there is no wage inflation, it's why real wages have been falling for most of the last 6 years. Osborne's figure fail because he has assumed wage growth and there isn't any, thus tax yields are off target and we're still subsidising low incomes.
There is no wage inflation because there is realism about the jobs market. The govt for instance are sacking civil servants and local govt people and (because of increased efficiancy and productivity) they are sharing back office jobs. Despite this net new jobs are being created. Because of this and external factors like oil we see low price inflation.
Tax revenues never matched what Brown expected in his day to sustain his spending. The UK is not generating the revenues expected for a long time.
You think no wage growth is a good thing ? ROFLMAO.
Mr Alanbroke there is only one arse around here and its not me. One day you will wake up and realise that people go to coffee shops tea shops and cafes for more than coffee. Its the seat the wifi the newspaper the company and the service as well as something a bit different than from a vandiong machine. As soon as you automate it (which really you cannot do as the machines need constant cleaning and then there are all the fancy derivatives and pretty patterns on the froth) or rely on 2 people not 3 then the business goes through the floor. Even motorway service stations offer 'costa' style coffee areas, although if you want to you can usually pour your own stuff along with the rubber chicken and chips.
You can of course go to WH Smith for a paper cup of coffee and spill it outside in the rain.
it's the razor sharp ripostes which so impress me.
Mr Alanbroke there is only one arse around here and its not me. One day you will wake up and realise that people go to coffee shops tea shops and cafes for more than coffee. Its the seat the wifi the newspaper the company and the service as well as something a bit different than from a vandiong machine. As soon as you automate it (which really you cannot do as the machines need constant cleaning and then there are all the fancy derivatives and pretty patterns on the froth) or rely on 2 people not 3 then the business goes through the floor. Even motorway service stations offer 'costa' style coffee areas, although if you want to you can usually pour your own stuff along with the rubber chicken and chips.
You can of course go to WH Smith for a paper cup of coffee and spill it outside in the rain.
it's the razor sharp ripostes which so impress me.
Yawn... like 'arse' you mean?
given the level of your previous post you should treat it like high praise indeed.
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.
I'm sure you're just being facetious , but obviously sneering descriptions in literature are a symptom, not a cause.
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 hdence that the same kind of thing is not happening elsewhere?
...
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.
....
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?
Or getting more money from each customer.
I take your point. If you go to a bank for a loan then while they have you thay can try to sell you some life insurance. But would we really call that better productivity? In a shop you can put something tempting by the till - but really this is just retail, optimising floor space to good effect, not productivity. You can sell better added value products, but there comes a point where you cannot employ less people but sell more goods - the queue grows and custom goes elsewhere. Thats why we have so many coffee shops. If you could automate coffee cup sales then we would have beer hall style coffee shops. Fashion may change and the product may die out. Productivity plays less a part than does the product.
Indigo/MalcolmG JSA pays about £3,000 a year, the minimum wage about £11,000 a year and you can still claim housing benefit if in work, the issue was more to do with tax and losing all your benefits if you take part time, contract work, universal credit and taking the lowest earners out of tax should help with that
Most on JSA at £70 a week will be getting housing benefit , so more like £250-£300 a week and therefore better than minimum wage and having to toil for 40 hours and pay your own rent , council tax , etc.
"If Labour wants the Scottish National Party to help put it in power after the election it needs to "up its game", Scotland's First Minister has said. Nicola Sturgeon told Sky News there was no way her party would ever put a Conservative government in power but that the SNP wasn't in the business of propping up Labour. The SNP is expected to perform well in the General Election in May and if Labour fails to win an outright majority Ed Miliband could look to Ms Sturgeon's party to deliver him to Downing Street."
Can you just imagine the fall out in England from that little arrangement?
I've taken the the post down because I was not aware of the UKIP-donor funded Survation poll in September. This wasn't, for some reason, in my database and I'd mistakenly assumed that there was nothing to base the betting on.
"If Labour wants the Scottish National Party to help put it in power after the election it needs to "up its game", Scotland's First Minister has said. Nicola Sturgeon told Sky News there was no way her party would ever put a Conservative government in power but that the SNP wasn't in the business of propping up Labour. The SNP is expected to perform well in the General Election in May and if Labour fails to win an outright majority Ed Miliband could look to Ms Sturgeon's party to deliver him to Downing Street."
Can you just imagine the fall out in England from that little arrangement?
I love how posts like this (about how horrified the English would be about a Labour government "propped up" by Scottish MPs) always make the very questionable assumption that most English people are desperate for a Tory government.
Did anyone at the political awards evening talk about the biased lack of awards for anyone connected to UKIP and non-representation of anyone from UKIP from what I could see on the BBC Parliament tv coverage of it?
I've taken the the post down because I was not aware of the UKIP-donor funded Survation poll in September. This wasn't, for some reason, in my database and I'd mistakenly assumed that there was nothing to base the betting on.
It came out when you were on holiday, the day Mark Reckless defected. The next day Lord Ashcroft released his own polling, so this poll got lost in that news cycle.
There were a couple of other constituency polls out that day as well
I had a post about the Green Party on the thread that briefly was, essentially suggesting people should take a look at their policy site http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/ and possibly have something strong to drink in the other hand, I suspect many people dont know what they are actually voting for. To my taste there is a lot of pie-in-the-sky combined with a certain amount of dangerous idiocy, but I would say that wouldn't I ;-)
A few policy items caught my eye, for anything thinking Cameron is having a bit of a problem negotiating some modest reforms with the EU, this should give pause for thought.
EU100 In our Green vision for Europe we seek to replace the unsustainable economics of free trade and unrestricted growth with the ecological alternative of local self reliance and resource conservation, within a context of wider diversity. We want to foster co-operation on issues of common interest, not establish international institutions for their own sake. We want social justice and economic democracy to bring fairer and more resilient societies to Europe.
EU110 To achieve the Green vision, Europe will need very different structures from those currently in existence. Europe should be made up of overlapping, co-operative, democratic, decentralised groupings of nations and regions.
EU200 If the Green vision for Europe is to be achieved, many of the existing European institutions will need to change profoundly. We believe that decisions are best made by those who are directly affected by them. The competencies of the EU must therefore change to include only those which benefit from European co-operation. We envisage fundamental transformation in the role of the EU as it becomes more "task oriented".
"If Labour wants the Scottish National Party to help put it in power after the election it needs to "up its game", Scotland's First Minister has said. Nicola Sturgeon told Sky News there was no way her party would ever put a Conservative government in power but that the SNP wasn't in the business of propping up Labour. The SNP is expected to perform well in the General Election in May and if Labour fails to win an outright majority Ed Miliband could look to Ms Sturgeon's party to deliver him to Downing Street."
Can you just imagine the fall out in England from that little arrangement?
I love how posts like this (about how horrified the English would be about a Labour government "propped up" by Scottish MPs) always make the very questionable assumption that most English people are desperate for a Tory government.
They also fail to see that some would be equally horrified by a Conservative government propped up by some NI parties .
YouGov - Grammar schools UKIP have a policy to encourage more Grammar Schools, but that's more popular with Conservative supporters (64%) than UKIP supporters (56%).
"If Labour wants the Scottish National Party to help put it in power after the election it needs to "up its game", Scotland's First Minister has said. Nicola Sturgeon told Sky News there was no way her party would ever put a Conservative government in power but that the SNP wasn't in the business of propping up Labour. The SNP is expected to perform well in the General Election in May and if Labour fails to win an outright majority Ed Miliband could look to Ms Sturgeon's party to deliver him to Downing Street."
Can you just imagine the fall out in England from that little arrangement?
I love how posts like this (about how horrified the English would be about a Labour government "propped up" by Scottish MPs) always make the very questionable assumption that most English people are desperate for a Tory government.
I don't think the SNP have any choice but to support Ed Miliband for PM. Could they really risk a quick second election (and it is possible even with the FTPA in place), with Labour saying that the SNP had the chance to keep the Tories out for 5 years, but have now given then a second opportunity?
"If Labour wants the Scottish National Party to help put it in power after the election it needs to "up its game", Scotland's First Minister has said. Nicola Sturgeon told Sky News there was no way her party would ever put a Conservative government in power but that the SNP wasn't in the business of propping up Labour. The SNP is expected to perform well in the General Election in May and if Labour fails to win an outright majority Ed Miliband could look to Ms Sturgeon's party to deliver him to Downing Street."
Can you just imagine the fall out in England from that little arrangement?
I love how posts like this (about how horrified the English would be about a Labour government "propped up" by Scottish MPs) always make the very questionable assumption that most English people are desperate for a Tory government.
I think a lot of Englishman, certainly a right-leaner like me, would be equally horrified if Cameron was propped up by the SNP. These are people whose whole raison d'etre has been rubbishing the union, and telling everyone how much better off Scotland would be without the rest of the UK, that is a perfectly respectable position to hold, but not as the government of the whole of the UK. I thought the SNP had previously had a self-denying ordinance from voting on matters that did not affect Scotland interests.
They also fail to see that some would be equally horrified by a Conservative government propped up by some NI parties .
It wouldn't be my first choice, but atleast those NI parties haven't been trying to tear up the union for the past several years, at least not any of the ones the Tories might want to do a deal with.
'David Cameron accused of retreating on EU migration in landmark speech after threat from Germany's Chancellor
Senior Conservative MPs are threatening a new revolt over Europe amid claims that the German chancellor Angela Merkel had intervened in David Cameron’s plan to curb European Union migration.'
'David Cameron accused of retreating on EU migration in landmark speech after threat from Germany's Chancellor
Senior Conservative MPs are threatening a new revolt over Europe amid claims that the German chancellor Angela Merkel had intervened in David Cameron’s plan to curb European Union migration.'
I've taken the the post down because I was not aware of the UKIP-donor funded Survation poll in September. This wasn't, for some reason, in my database and I'd mistakenly assumed that there was nothing to base the betting on.
It came out when you were on holiday, the day Mark Reckless defected. The next day Lord Ashcroft released his own polling, so this poll got lost in that news cycle.
There were a couple of other constituency polls out that day as well
I've taken the the post down because I was not aware of the UKIP-donor funded Survation poll in September. This wasn't, for some reason, in my database and I'd mistakenly assumed that there was nothing to base the betting on.
It came out when you were on holiday, the day Mark Reckless defected. The next day Lord Ashcroft released his own polling, so this poll got lost in that news cycle.
There were a couple of other constituency polls out that day as well
'David Cameron accused of retreating on EU migration in landmark speech after threat from Germany's Chancellor
The important paragraph in that article is the last one:
It has been revealed that the European Commission has lodged papers with the European Court of Justice to take legal action against Britain to force it to pay child benefits and child tax credits to migrants.
That makes it a treaty change if they win, regardless of anyone's previous reassurances.
"If Labour wants the Scottish National Party to help put it in power after the election it needs to "up its game", Scotland's First Minister has said. Nicola Sturgeon told Sky News there was no way her party would ever put a Conservative government in power but that the SNP wasn't in the business of propping up Labour. The SNP is expected to perform well in the General Election in May and if Labour fails to win an outright majority Ed Miliband could look to Ms Sturgeon's party to deliver him to Downing Street."
Can you just imagine the fall out in England from that little arrangement?
I love how posts like this (about how horrified the English would be about a Labour government "propped up" by Scottish MPs) always make the very questionable assumption that most English people are desperate for a Tory government.
I think a lot of Englishman, certainly a right-leaner like me, would be equally horrified if Cameron was propped up by the SNP. These are people whose whole raison d'etre has been rubbishing the union, and telling everyone how much better off Scotland would be without the rest of the UK, that is a perfectly respectable position to hold, but not as the government of the whole of the UK. I thought the SNP had previously had a self-denying ordinance from voting on matters that did not affect Scotland interests.
They also fail to see that some would be equally horrified by a Conservative government propped up by some NI parties .
It wouldn't be my first choice, but atleast those NI parties haven't been trying to tear up the union for the past several years, at least not any of the ones the Tories might want to do a deal with.
I think you need to reread the original report again. There's nothing to suggest a coalition; and it is perfectly reasonable for the SNP to want the UK to be run properly while Scotland is still part of the UK. Not incompatible with leaving English matters t the English.
"If Labour wants the Scottish National Party to help put it in power after the election it needs to "up its game", Scotland's First Minister has said. Nicola Sturgeon told Sky News there was no way her party would ever put a Conservative government in power but that the SNP wasn't in the business of propping up Labour. The SNP is expected to perform well in the General Election in May and if Labour fails to win an outright majority Ed Miliband could look to Ms Sturgeon's party to deliver him to Downing Street."
Can you just imagine the fall out in England from that little arrangement?
I love how posts like this (about how horrified the English would be about a Labour government "propped up" by Scottish MPs) always make the very questionable assumption that most English people are desperate for a Tory government.
I think a lot of Englishman, certainly a right-leaner like me, would be equally horrified if Cameron was propped up by the SNP. These are people whose whole raison d'etre has been rubbishing the union, and telling everyone how much better off Scotland would be without the rest of the UK, that is a perfectly respectable position to hold, but not as the government of the whole of the UK. I thought the SNP had previously had a self-denying ordinance from voting on matters that did not affect Scotland interests.
They also fail to see that some would be equally horrified by a Conservative government propped up by some NI parties .
It wouldn't be my first choice, but atleast those NI parties haven't been trying to tear up the union for the past several years, at least not any of the ones the Tories might want to do a deal with.
I think you need to reread the original report again. There's nothing to suggest a coalition; and it is perfectly reasonable for the SNP to want the UK to be run properly while Scotland is still part of the UK. Not incompatible with leaving English matters t the English.
How could they vote on favour if the government budget without voting on English health and education spending ?
Isam, It's odd that Ukip are getting a much worse press than the Greens. One is accused of wanting to taken us back to the 1950s and the other actually wants us to take us back to the 1650s - that golden age before industry. When we made friends with Bubonic plague, turnips were the staple diet, many died before reaching five years old, and the cows died of old age And windmills were cutting edge technology.
1650s, humbug, not back far enough. The Romans started coal burning activity in this country. The Greens are looking at a pre-Roman land. Anyone for woad?
"Switzerland's population has grown by over a million in 20 years, and is currently 8.2 million. Some 23% of its inhabitants are foreign nationals, most of them from EU states.
Last year, net immigration stood at 81,000, according to public broadcaster Swiss Info. "
Swiss population is just over 13% of the UK. The equivalent net migration figure , in UK terms, would be just above 610,000.
Comments
We really need an economy where local people get off their arses and start jobs at the entry level and work hard, but we have been selling these people a bill of goods for years (yes Labour we are looking at you) that they can sit at home and have an "unemployed lifestyle" and that is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. When you combine that with the "all must have prizes" educational environment, the (until Gove) falling standards of education, you have a perfect storm for lazy sods sitting on the couch while hard working immigrants do the work.
It should be bloke from Gdansk stays in Gdansk since Poland needs ambiitious skilled people too. Bristol guy's boss notices his labour is getting pricey and hard to obtain so buys a chunk of street sweeping machines. 3 blokes can now do the work of 4 but need to be paid slighltly more as they've upskilled. Fourth bloke gets call from competitor as they're finding it difficult to get people. productivity goes up, price to customer is stable workers get paid more, Government gets more tax income.
Your issue on London is actually a seperate economic problem, which is how do you handle an overdominant region and the distortions it creates ? France has the same problem with Paris.
If the argument's right, it's right in both cases. Newcastle would benefit from ambitious workers not leaving, and if London had to spend more on labour they'd mechanize faster.
On the other hand it would be interesting to see how the massive investment we have seen in our car and car engine industry could cut jobs further. Such investment has created jobs, well paid jobs, in places like Merseyside and Birmingham and Coventry. All that investment has come from overseas. The jobs of course could easily go overseas if we priced taxed quotad or tarriffed our selves out of them.
The growth in the service sector - a sector serving the well paid workers in places like our car industy - is precisely because workers have disposable income and leisure available to spend in the service sector.
Jesus the fact that you can even ask that questions shows you're an economic illiterate.
Ever heard of the internet ? click and collect ? self-scan machines?
Arse.
The fact remains that many native brits turn their noses up at some jobs.
BTW, note how this breaks the assumption in Indigo's street-sweeper example up-thread that the mechanized jobs will be higher-skilled and result in higher pay locally. The convenience store employee is less skilled at coffee-making than the person in the legacy coffee shop, and probably gets paid less. (I guess there may be some higher-skilled coffee machinery design jobs in whatever country they make the machines, but it's probably not Japan...)
Your fourth man moves to selling cups of coffee. Other men find the previously suitable work for them has been taken away by technology. Our balance of payments widens because of all the street sweeping machines we import. The quality of our street cleaning declines as the machines are not really suitable and constantly break down because you refuse to import the Polish mechanics to service them.
It's odd that Ukip are getting a much worse press than the Greens. One is accused of wanting to taken us back to the 1950s and the other actually wants us to take us back to the 1650s - that golden age before industry. When we made friends with Bubonic plague, turnips were the staple diet, many died before reaching five years old, and the cows died of old age
And windmills were cutting edge technology.
And not just the economic burden but the social burden as well.
We've created a society based upon the glorification of greed and conspicuous consumption.
As we cannot afford this "because I'm worth it" mentality the head of the economic snake is now steadily swallowing its tail.
With the result that society becomes increasingly unequal and we now measure debt in trillions.
Even motorway service stations offer 'costa' style coffee areas, although if you want to you can usually pour your own stuff along with the rubber chicken and chips.
You can of course go to WH Smith for a paper cup of coffee and spill it outside in the rain.
Are you trying to pretend unemployment is not falling? Are you trying to pretend hundreds of thousands of jobs have not been created? You can ignore all the jobs if you like but they are there. Stick to inventing to preserve your facile economic opinions.
I thought you were a cut above the worst of the trolls on here?
Because of this and external factors like oil we see low price inflation.
Tax revenues never matched what Brown expected in his day to sustain his spending. The UK is not generating the revenues expected for a long time.
I'm working on the basis of the noisy ones.
Do you have to be a vegan?
Would you like to ban animal experimentation even for drug research?
Would you have been happy for coal mining to go ahead to power the industrial revolution?
On more realistic quesions ...
Do you support fracking?
Do you support nuclear power?
The point I'm making is that Ukip are defined by the most extreme cases not by the Isams of this world. Remember any Kipper speaks for all, and the most extreme get the headlines. That doesn't happen with the Greens or does it?
But would we really call that better productivity? In a shop you can put something tempting by the till - but really this is just retail, optimising floor space to good effect, not productivity. You can sell better added value products, but there comes a point where you cannot employ less people but sell more goods - the queue grows and custom goes elsewhere. Thats why we have so many coffee shops. If you could automate coffee cup sales then we would have beer hall style coffee shops.
Fashion may change and the product may die out. Productivity plays less a part than does the product.
We seem to have lost a new thread. Hope it wasn't something I said?
"If Labour wants the Scottish National Party to help put it in power after the election it needs to "up its game", Scotland's First Minister has said. Nicola Sturgeon told Sky News there was no way her party would ever put a Conservative government in power but that the SNP wasn't in the business of propping up Labour. The SNP is expected to perform well in the General Election in May and if Labour fails to win an outright majority Ed Miliband could look to Ms Sturgeon's party to deliver him to Downing Street."
Can you just imagine the fall out in England from that little arrangement?
I've taken the the post down because I was not aware of the UKIP-donor funded Survation poll in September. This wasn't, for some reason, in my database and I'd mistakenly assumed that there was nothing to base the betting on.
"I was not aware of the UKIP-donor funded Survation poll"
Ah, that explains it. I'd assumed it wasn't reliable despite my own on-the-ground research. Perhaps my family are typical then?
There were a couple of other constituency polls out that day as well
http://survation.com/new-constituency-polling-for-alan-bown/
A few policy items caught my eye, for anything thinking Cameron is having a bit of a problem negotiating some modest reforms with the EU, this should give pause for thought.
UKIP have a policy to encourage more Grammar Schools, but that's more popular with Conservative supporters (64%) than UKIP supporters (56%).
p.7
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/vibey5ti4y/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-281114.pdf
Could they really risk a quick second election (and it is possible even with the FTPA in place), with Labour saying that the SNP had the chance to keep the Tories out for 5 years, but have now given then a second opportunity?
Senior Conservative MPs are threatening a new revolt over Europe amid claims that the German chancellor Angela Merkel had intervened in David Cameron’s plan to curb European Union migration.'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11263037/Eurosceptics-hopping-mad-over-claims-Angela-Merkel-intervened-in-David-Camerons-attempt-to-curb-migration.html?WT.mc_id=e_3722025&WT.tsrc=email&etype=frontpage&utm_source=email&utm_medium=Edi_FPM_New_TEST_V2_2014_11_30&utm_campaign=3722025
Vote of no confidence in Dave.
Cameronites flushed out of Tory party to their true home in the Lib Dems.
Thanks Santa,
Luckyguy1983
Don't forget to read my F1 season review, up here: http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/2014-f1-season-review.html
Unless you don't like F1, of course, in which case reading it would make as much sense as trying to impregnate a postbox.
Mr. Indigo, just one more reason why we should leave the vile anti-democratic unaccountable cabal of meddlesome foreign eunuchs that is the EU.
"Switzerland's population has grown by over a million in 20 years, and is currently 8.2 million. Some 23% of its inhabitants are foreign nationals, most of them from EU states.
Last year, net immigration stood at 81,000, according to public broadcaster Swiss Info. "
Swiss population is just over 13% of the UK. The equivalent net migration figure , in UK terms, would be just above 610,000.