What's that story in the STimes about "New York Mayor eyes Boris's job"?
The Tories are reportedly sounding out Bloomberg about standing for London Mayor, presumably because they can't find anyone in the entire United Kingdom willing to give it a go who looks vaguely plausible. ROFL.
I think UKIP should put up Vladimir Putin. I'm sure Farage could swing the nomination for him.
Tx. I would have thought you need to at least be an EU national to be London mayor, if not British.
Nearly a million people visiting food banks and rising.....kids going to school hungry because their parents are struggling.......
103 businessmen with an average income of over £5,000,000 write to the Telegraph telling them it's crucial for the Tories to win the election.....
I'm starting to think this might be the most important election in my lifetime.
Because it would be so much better if those businessmen decided it would be better for their business to relocate to India or Malaysia, that would cure the problem with food banks and parents struggling right away.... oh wait!
I can't see Karen Brady moving West Ham to India. It would be great, but it's not going to happen. Stratford is far enough. A nice, new subsidised home from Boris and the government.
That's one saved then. What about the other thousand of businessmen and women across the country ?
We'll stick around. The vast majority of others will too.
Yes, I noticed that happening in France when Hollande was elected, they stuck around waiting for the next Eurostar to London.
The vast majority of French companies are still in France, but they are struggling because of labour laws we do not have (and no-one is going to introduce) and because they do not have any control over their currency. Like you, I am delighted that we have benefited from an influx of highly-qualified, ambitious, young French immigrants. We get their top talent, they get our unproductive retirees. Isn't the EU great?
As the 'unproductive retirees' are spending their savings and pensions they're an economic boost to the areas they retire to.
We also got a few hundred thousand East European Roma.
But as long as places like Rotherham get the economic and cultural enrichment they bring rather than Royal Leamington Spa I guess that doesn't bother you.
If you wish to control immigration, why not simply have every immigrant pay £50,000 to live in the UK. (And make the number x, equivalent to 1.2x the cost of an immigrant.)
The idea that the government, or civil servants, or politicians can correctly adjudge who the best people to be in the UK are is akin to suggesting they know what kind of car you should drive, or which industries should be invested in.
Because I am not sure a group of rich children of Russian Oligarchs is what we need to bring our industry and commerce forward!
For the life of me I can't see why you are so opposed to an Australian/Canadian type system, both liberal modern states. An objective, colour blind points system based off of skills and qualifications generally useful to the country, favouring the young that will contribute for a long time before they retire, with a fast path for people with required skills that have a job offer, and specific bonuses for skills that are currently in need by their economies.
Either you believe the government should have power, or you do not. Either you believe in individuals making their own decisions, or you do not.
You - like all the Labour party, many LibDems and Conservatives, and most kippers (excepting Richard Tyndall here) - seem to believe the government knows best.
Free market solutions mean allowing people to make their own decisions. That is morally right.
It will also have much the same impact as a points or quota system, but will benefit all Brits through tax revenue.
So by that argument we should have open borders, and accept people from around the world anyone should be able to come to the UK and pitch for any job, to give the maximum access to talent and the maximum competition for wages, can see why employers like it, not sure it will go down so well with the people having their wages competed down.
Except for the problem of our free healthcare and education it might work.
Yes, i think its the interaction of the social programmes. Which are devised to provide a minimum standard of living. This minimum puts our poor people in the top global 1%. Along with the interaction of the minimum wage.
What's that story in the STimes about "New York Mayor eyes Boris's job"?
The Tories are reportedly sounding out Bloomberg about standing for London Mayor, presumably because they can't find anyone in the entire United Kingdom willing to give it a go who looks vaguely plausible. ROFL.
I think UKIP should put up Vladimir Putin. I'm sure Farage could swing the nomination for him.
Tx. I would have thought you need to at least be an EU national to be London mayor, if not British.
Unless it has unusual resident requirements, being a citizen of a commonwealth nation would be enough.
Nearly a million people visiting food banks and rising.....kids going to school hungry because their parents are struggling.......
103 businessmen with an average income of over £5,000,000 write to the Telegraph telling them it's crucial for the Tories to win the election.....
I'm starting to think this might be the most important election in my lifetime.
Because it would be so much better if those businessmen decided it would be better for their business to relocate to India or Malaysia, that would cure the problem with food banks and parents struggling right away.... oh wait!
I can't see Karen Brady moving West Ham to India. It would be great, but it's not going to happen. Stratford is far enough. A nice, new subsidised home from Boris and the government.
That's one saved then. What about the other thousand of businessmen and women across the country ?
We'll stick around. The vast majority of others will too.
Yes, I noticed that happening in France when Hollande was elected, they stuck around waiting for the next Eurostar to London.
The vast majority of French companies are still in France, but they are struggling because of labour laws we do not have (and no-one is going to introduce) and because they do not have any control over their currency. Like you, I am delighted that we have benefited from an influx of highly-qualified, ambitious, young French immigrants. We get their top talent, they get our unproductive retirees. Isn't the EU great?
Just shows how talented young people can benefit the country. Unfortunately for the UK only one party wants to restrict immigration to talented people.
Surely the market is the best way of deciding what the right products and people are to come into the country.
People - i.e. labour - are a commodity like any other.
It has always puzzled me that right wing economic theorists who believe in the uncontrolled movement of capital suddenly create a wall when it comes to the movement of labour !
A true disciple of Adam Smith would not do that. The right wingers today are just fakes !
The reason is straightforward. We have an extensive welfare State, including the NHS and education. As Milton Friedman put it, you can have a welfare State, or you can have open Borders, but you can't have both.
If you wish to control immigration, why not simply have every immigrant pay £50,000 to live in the UK. (And make the number x, equivalent to 1.2x the cost of an immigrant.)
The idea that the government, or civil servants, or politicians can correctly adjudge who the best people to be in the UK are is akin to suggesting they know what kind of car you should drive, or which industries should be invested in.
Because I am not sure a group of rich children of Russian Oligarchs is what we need to bring our industry and commerce forward!
For the life of me I can't see why you are so opposed to an Australian/Canadian type system, both liberal modern states. An objective, colour blind points system based off of skills and qualifications generally useful to the country, favouring the young that will contribute for a long time before they retire, with a fast path for people with required skills that have a job offer, and specific bonuses for skills that are currently in need by their economies.
Either you believe the government should have power, or you do not. Either you believe in individuals making their own decisions, or you do not.
You - like all the Labour party, many LibDems and Conservatives, and most kippers (excepting Richard Tyndall here) - seem to believe the government knows best.
Free market solutions mean allowing people to make their own decisions. That is morally right.
It will also have much the same impact as a points or quota system, but will benefit all Brits through tax revenue.
So by that argument we should have open borders, and accept people from around the world anyone should be able to come to the UK and pitch for any job, to give the maximum access to talent and the maximum competition for wages, can see why employers like it, not sure it will go down so well with the people having their wages competed down.
Except for the problem of our free healthcare and education it might work.
And benefits. The free market model is predicated on people living in their wits, not getting state support if they fall on hard times. Otherwise you drastically reduce the risk involved in immigration. rcs1k's approach IMO only works if you have no welfare state.
Politician uses their six year old child to further their career by putting a picture of them on the front page of a national newspaper during an election.
Question: What do you think their profession was before becoming a politician?
1. They were a charity worker 2. They were a priest 3. They were a doctor 4. They were a librarian 5. They were an account executive in an advertising agency
All about flexibility, Rog. For a photo as cute as that we can bend the rules a little.
And let's acknowledge the serious underlying political point that if you vote Conservative, your own children will be better-looking.
Nearly a million people visiting food banks and rising.....kids going to school hungry because their parents are struggling.......
103 businessmen with an average income of over £5,000,000 write to the Telegraph telling them it's crucial for the Tories to win the election.....
I'm starting to think this might be the most important election in my lifetime.
Because it would be so much better if those businessmen decided it would be better for their business to relocate to India or Malaysia, that would cure the problem with food banks and parents struggling right away.... oh wait!
I can't see Karen Brady moving West Ham to India. It would be great, but it's not going to happen. Stratford is far enough. A nice, new subsidised home from Boris and the government.
That's one saved then. What about the other thousand of businessmen and women across the country ?
We'll stick around. The vast majority of others will too.
Yes, I noticed that happening in France when Hollande was elected, they stuck around waiting for the next Eurostar to London.
The vast majority of French companies are still in France, but they are struggling because of labour laws we do not have (and no-one is going to introduce) and because they do not have any control over their currency. Like you, I am delighted that we have benefited from an influx of highly-qualified, ambitious, young French immigrants. We get their top talent, they get our unproductive retirees. Isn't the EU great?
As the 'unproductive retirees' are spending their savings and pensions they're an economic boost to the areas they retire to.
We also got a few hundred thousand East European Roma.
But as long as places like Rotherham get the economic and cultural enrichment they bring rather than Royal Leamington Spa I guess that doesn't bother you.
"We also got a few hundred thousand East European Roma."
What's that story in the STimes about "New York Mayor eyes Boris's job"?
The Tories are reportedly sounding out Bloomberg about standing for London Mayor, presumably because they can't find anyone in the entire United Kingdom willing to give it a go who looks vaguely plausible. ROFL.
I think UKIP should put up Vladimir Putin. I'm sure Farage could swing the nomination for him.
Tx. I would have thought you need to at least be an EU national to be London mayor, if not British.
Unless it has unusual resident requirements, being a citizen of a commonwealth nation would be enough.
I looked him up on Wiki, he was born in America, his grandfather was Russian, I can't see how he could be eligible to stand.
If you wish to control immigration, why not simply have every immigrant pay £50,000 to live in the UK. (And make the number x, equivalent to 1.2x the cost of an immigrant.)
The idea that the government, or civil servants, or politicians can correctly adjudge who the best people to be in the UK are is akin to suggesting they know what kind of car you should drive, or which industries should be invested in.
Because I am not sure a group of rich children of Russian Oligarchs is what we need to bring our industry and commerce forward!
For the life of me I can't see why you are so opposed to an Australian/Canadian type system, both liberal modern states. An objective, colour blind points system based off of skills and qualifications generally useful to the country, favouring the young that will contribute for a long time before they retire, with a fast path for people with required skills that have a job offer, and specific bonuses for skills that are currently in need by their economies.
No? You think points systems are all sweetness and light? Canada has a points system. Have you seen its numbers of immigrants. A country with a far smaller population nthan the UK has about 250,000 immigrants a year. It has a large immigrant population. Both Canada and Australia rank higher than the UK in terms of net immigration per size of population.
If skilled workers generate increase in economic activity then they will also generate a demand for so called unskilled labour. EU workers of course can move where they want in the EU and as their own countries prosperity increases they can easily move back. Young people will most likely move around like this. Thats not to say that free movement should not operate within rules. There are already rules and those rules can be changed as apprpriate. Rules are there for changing. UKIP do nothing in the EU parliament and offer nothing positive in this respect. Only 'ugly nativism'.
If you wish to control immigration, why not simply have every immigrant pay £50,000 to live in the UK. (And make the number x, equivalent to 1.2x the cost of an immigrant.)
The idea that the government, or civil servants, or politicians can correctly adjudge who the best people to be in the UK are is akin to suggesting they know what kind of car you should drive, or which industries should be invested in.
Because I am not sure a group of rich children of Russian Oligarchs is what we need to bring our industry and commerce forward!
For the life of me I can't see why you are so opposed to an Australian/Canadian type system, both liberal modern states. An objective, colour blind points system based off of skills and qualifications generally useful to the country, favouring the young that will contribute for a long time before they retire, with a fast path for people with required skills that have a job offer, and specific bonuses for skills that are currently in need by their economies.
Either you believe the government should have power, or you do not. Either you believe in individuals making their own decisions, or you do not.
You - like all the Labour party, many LibDems and Conservatives, and most kippers (excepting Richard Tyndall here) - seem to believe the government knows best.
Free market solutions mean allowing people to make their own decisions. That is morally right.
It will also have much the same impact as a points or quota system, but will benefit all Brits through tax revenue.
So by that argument we should have open borders, and accept people from around the world anyone should be able to come to the UK and pitch for any job, to give the maximum access to talent and the maximum competition for wages, can see why employers like it, not sure it will go down so well with the people having their wages competed down.
Except for the problem of our free healthcare and education it might work.
And benefits. The free market model is predicated on people living in their wits, not getting state support if they fall on hard times. Otherwise you drastically reduce the risk involved in immigration. rcs1k's approach IMO only works if you have no welfare state.
rcs1k's model is predicated on his businesses getting access to the broadest possible labour pool to further his economic objectives whist relying on the tax payer to fund the lifestyle, education and welfare of anyone that comes to the country that he or similar employers chose not to offer a job. Thereby availing himself of all of the benefits and none of the costs, I can see how it sounds attractive.
Under government plans nobody is "commanded" to invest. Miliband thinks they should be but privately admits they can't be.
Nobody was commanded, so they shoved it all into the mortgage market that didn't need it, instead of the SME investment market which did.
The taxpayer gave the banks hundreds of billions, still owns siginificant chunks of several of them, and is setting up bank accounts which involved a huge taxpayer subsidy.
The notion that the taxpayers' representatives can't say "Oh, and since that's going to be for house buying, you need to use some of it for house building so the houses are there to be bought" prioritises liberal ideology over basic common sense.
Even if Miliband's plan were bad economics (it isn't), it's excellent politics, and we are in an election campaign.
Think I saw a post on here yesterday saying Scottish Ukip seats were too high at 0-0.5
Reminded me of the day arsenal lost to Leeds utd at highbury in 2003... I was working at IG Sport at the time and w the score at 3-2 in the 92nd min a punter phoned up...
'F1234 here, close my position in the arsenal total goals market'
Me: 'the quote is 5-5.2...you're long at 3.2... That would mean selling at 5. Are you sure you want to do that'
'I want to take my profit, close the position'
'But you're selling at the lowest it can be? You might as well leave it open'
'Whose account is it mine or yours??? I want to sell at 5'
'Ok you sell £200@5 total goals Arsenal vs Leeds. Five so far'
Fair play to him he phoned back 5 mins later and apologised for being so stupid
So by that argument we should have open borders, and accept people from around the world anyone should be able to come to the UK and pitch for any job, to give the maximum access to talent and the maximum competition for wages, can see why employers like it, not sure it will go down so well with the people having their wages competed down.
Except for the problem of our free healthcare and education it might work.
My view is yes. But I realise that is politically unacceptable, so I sugessted making immigrants pay £50,000 for the right to come here. A tariff, so to speak, on immigrants.
Only those who reckoned that the opportunities afforded by the UK were worth £50,000 would come here. It would pretty much self select people with skills - and without any government overhead and with the benefit of tax revenues. And if the right price - i.e. considering all the externalities - was £100,000, that would be fine.
The point I'm making is this: governments have been proven terrible at deciding what the right good and services to come into the country are, and abysmal at choosing what industries to invest in. In each case, the market has been much, much better at choosing.
In a "points" system, we'd perpetually have the government peering in the rear view mirror, and they'd spend their time being lobbied by industry groups ("we need more prolog programmers") and by trade unions ("this will drive down the wages of prolog programers!").
The market is wonderful. If we have too few prolog programmers, then the price of prolog programmers will rise. If we have too many, then the price will fall. And the rising and lowering of prices of various types of labour will cause people to choose to learn what skills. When you start moving to a points system, you start changing those incentives. Suddenly, people have to make a choice about not only what demand for a skill will be, but what changes the government will make about the number of people we need with this skill.
A simple "pay for entry" scheme (one which obviously excludes convicted criminals) would be:
1. Better for taxpayers, as it would bring in billions of pounds of revenue 2. Better for individuals, and companies, because it would allow them to make their own decisions 3. Be much cheaper to implement, and not require any additional civil servants or increase the power of politicians and 4. Be economically more sensible, because economic agents are better at making decisions than governments.
No it is not Robert. That is a stupid analogy. The Government, quite rightly, are charged with the control of our borders and as such are the only organisation that can properly enact the public's view on who should or should not enter the country. If the public choose to have a system of controls on place based upon a broad spectrum of benefits and costs to the country from immigration (as in a points system) then it is the government who is tasked with putting that into action.
The problem as I have long seen it with your position is that you believe we should have unfettered immigration so as to benefit business but at the same time business should not be asked to deal with or pay for any costs or problems arising from the immigration. Personally I think that if you as a business want a migrant to come and do a job for you then it is the business which should be responsible for all the costs of that employee from the time they arrive in the country to the time they leave. That includes having to pay the costs of whatever benefits and services they are due if the business decides they no longer have work for them. And that should apply until the migrant either leaves the country again or gets alternative employment. Business should be responsible for the costs of migration just as much as they benefit from it.
That's not a very different view from the one I proposed with my £50,000 suggestion, except in that it moves the burden from the individual and to the employing business.
Mr. Politics, I can't recall for certain but I think I criticised Osborne for that at the time. Also, using public funds is different to commanding private enterprise to invest in certain projects.
I'm not partisan when it comes to political criticism. Yesterday I said Cameron ought to be thrashed around the head and neck with a large haddock until he has the vaguest understanding of how the internet works beaten into him.
Miliband's policy is crackers. One can only assume the Happy Warrior encountered a Dark Enchantress who cast a confusion spell upon him.
Point of order: most people have little more than a vague understanding of how the Internet works. Heck, I've been working on and off in and around low-level Internet protocols for nearly twenty years, and I'm fuzzy on lots of it.
And that's one of the problems with schemes to limit what people can see and do on t'Internet: it is so complex technically and broad in terms of delivery that it is easy to drive a coach and horses through most schemes.
Having said that, the other day I saw a CBeebies program that did a passable basic explanation of the way data is packeted for sending. It was quite impressive that they're trying to teach that sort of thing to babies. ;-)
No? You think points systems are all sweetness and light? Canada has a points system. Have you seen its numbers of immigrants. A country with a far smaller population nthan the UK has about 250,000 immigrants a year. It has a large immigrant population. Both Canada and Australia rank higher than the UK in terms of net immigration per size of population.
If skilled workers generate increase in economic activity then they will also generate a demand for so called unskilled labour. EU workers of course can move where they want in the EU and as their own countries prosperity increases they can easily move back. Young people will most likely move around like this. Thats not to say that free movement should not operate within rules. There are already rules and those rules can be changed as apprpriate. Rules are there for changing. UKIP do nothing in the EU parliament and offer nothing positive in this respect. Only 'ugly nativism'.
What a lot of illiterate cut-and-pastery and cant, why do you bother. I know you have your latest sound byte handed you by CCHQ ("nativism"), and that you are trying hard to get it into every post, but try to at least use it in a place that makes sense.
A points based system if the very opposite of "nativism", although you would need an IQ and a pulse to understand that, it means accepting anyone, from anywhere, of any colour, from any culture that is beneficial to the country, in terms of their skills and abilities, suitability to work and ability to contribute.
There are no rules on free movement that make any different, its about as absolute as it gets within the EU, as DC is going to find out when he trying to change eligibility for benefits and it gets struck down by the ECJ. It is against the EU law to treat any citizen of the EU differently to how you treat your own citizens, period.
Mr. Politics, that raises two more problems: 1) Most banks don't have state aid. 2) Those that do aren't run politically. Do you really want those that do to become politicised and decisions to be taken for political rather than business reasons?
No? You think points systems are all sweetness and light? Canada has a points system. Have you seen its numbers of immigrants. A country with a far smaller population nthan the UK has about 250,000 immigrants a year. It has a large immigrant population. Both Canada and Australia rank higher than the UK in terms of net immigration per size of population.
If skilled workers generate increase in economic activity then they will also generate a demand for so called unskilled labour. EU workers of course can move where they want in the EU and as their own countries prosperity increases they can easily move back. Young people will most likely move around like this. Thats not to say that free movement should not operate within rules. There are already rules and those rules can be changed as apprpriate. Rules are there for changing. UKIP do nothing in the EU parliament and offer nothing positive in this respect. Only 'ugly nativism'.
Flightpath with his typical disingenuous postings again. Or maybe he is just stupid.
Canada and Australia choose to have that many people migrate there. But they also get to choose who those people are. A points system does not mean that any individual country just shuts up shop and stops all migration. It does not even mean that the country has less migration necessarily. What it means is that they get to choose what types of skills they believe the country needs and to filter the migrants accordingly - or even encourage more migration of people with those skills sets.
Claiming that the base numbers of people entering a country invalidates the points system is, quite frankly, ignorant bollocks much like we are used to seeing from you.
If you wish to control immigration, why not simply have every immigrant pay £50,000 to live in the UK. (And make the number x, equivalent to 1.2x the cost of an immigrant.)
The idea that the government, or civil servants, or politicians can correctly adjudge who the best people to be in the UK are is akin to suggesting they know what kind of car you should drive, or which industries should be invested in.
Because I am not sure a group of rich children of Russian Oligarchs is what we need to bring our industry and commerce forward!
For the life of me I can't see why you are so opposed to an Australian/Canadian type system, both liberal modern states. An objective, colour blind points system based off of skills and qualifications generally useful to the country, favouring the young that will contribute for a long time before they retire, with a fast path for people with required skills that have a job offer, and specific bonuses for skills that are currently in need by their economies.
Either you believe the government should have power, or you do not. Either you believe in individuals making their own decisions, or you do not.
You - like all the Labour party, many LibDems and Conservatives, and most kippers (excepting Richard Tyndall here) - seem to believe the government knows best.
Free market solutions mean allowing people to make their own decisions. That is morally right.
It will also have much the same impact as a points or quota system, but will benefit all Brits through tax revenue.
So by that argument we should have open borders, and accept people from around the world anyone should be able to come to the UK and pitch for any job, to give the maximum access to talent and the maximum competition for wages, can see why employers like it, not sure it will go down so well with the people having their wages competed down.
Except for the problem of our free healthcare and education it might work.
And benefits. The free market model is predicated on people living in their wits, not getting state support if they fall on hard times. Otherwise you drastically reduce the risk involved in immigration. rcs1k's approach IMO only works if you have no welfare state.
That's not required. What you do need is for a high enough proportion of the people who show up to get jobs and pay taxes compared to the proportion who live on welfare. You can make the argument that they wouldn't, especially if the UK opened its borders while the rest of the developed world kept them closed which might attract a lot of people without the skills to earn much, but it's not something you can derive from first principles.
Nearly a million people visiting food banks and rising.....kids going to school hungry because their parents are struggling.......
103 businessmen with an average income of over £5,000,000 write to the Telegraph telling them it's crucial for the Tories to win the election.....
I'm starting to think this might be the most important election in my lifetime.
Because it would be so much better if those businessmen decided it would be better for their business to relocate to India or Malaysia, that would cure the problem with food banks and parents struggling right away.... oh wait!
I can't see Karen Brady moving West Ham to India. It would be great, but it's not going to happen. Stratford is far enough. A nice, new subsidised home from Boris and the government.
That's one saved then. What about the other thousand of businessmen and women across the country ?
We'll stick around. The vast majority of others will too.
Yes, I noticed that happening in France when Hollande was elected, they stuck around waiting for the next Eurostar to London.
The vast majority of French companies are still in France, but they are struggling because of labour laws we do not have (and no-one is going to introduce) and because they do not have any control over their currency. Like you, I am delighted that we have benefited from an influx of highly-qualified, ambitious, young French immigrants. We get their top talent, they get our unproductive retirees. Isn't the EU great?
As the 'unproductive retirees' are spending their savings and pensions they're an economic boost to the areas they retire to.
We also got a few hundred thousand East European Roma.
But as long as places like Rotherham get the economic and cultural enrichment they bring rather than Royal Leamington Spa I guess that doesn't bother you.
"We also got a few hundred thousand East European Roma."
What did you think to include the last word ?
Because that's what they're called both by government organisations and themselves:
Correct. As your link points out the govt is not dictating, or was not at the time (2012), that the banks must invest in certain things. It was supplying guarantees to banks to enable them to lend in uncertain times to businesses who needed to borrow. It is not attempting to 'pick winners'. Winners like British Leyland and of course the great idea of selling MG Rover to the Phoenix 4.
Nearly a million people visiting food banks and rising.....kids going to school hungry because their parents are struggling.......
103 businessmen with an average income of over £5,000,000 write to the Telegraph telling them it's crucial for the Tories to win the election.....
I'm starting to think this might be the most important election in my lifetime.
I don't normally bother engaging with Roger as its a pointless exercise but just had to call him out on this occasion.
The above is crap quite simply. My wife worked in a junior school between 2000 and 2007 . We were always making sandwiches at home to take in to feed the children that did not get breakfast. There were quite a few and it did get worse over that time from a trickle to a flood. We also noticed something else that many new terms children came to school that could speak no English at all. My wife used to get a child that did speak to translate for her to find out what was happening. The huge amounts of money that were then spent on translators and translations and additional staff to assist the English was huge. It took money out of all other budgets to the point that all children then lost out with no school trips lack of new books, lack of equipment parents were asked to buy books for their children or give donations to the school to but stationary.
. In the summer holidays of 2004 I and others went into the school and painted the walls with our own paint as there was no money left for maintenance. Others volunteered their skills. Plumbers carpenters etc at no charge and in their own time. There was a la k of classroom space and the outside hut temporary classroom was condemned as maintenance could not be afforded. And subsequent repairs could not be done.
As a last aside. My wife remains in touch with the school and over the last 3 years their have been dramatic improvements and a new bricked classroom being built.
So Roger please just crawl back under your stone and take that left wing crap with you. To point the finger at this coalition is quite simply a lie. This wholeheartedly started with Labour and has only started to improve under this coalition.
That's not required. What you do need is for a high enough proportion of the people who show up to get jobs and pay taxes compared to the proportion who live on welfare. You can make the argument that they wouldn't, especially if the UK opened its borders while the rest of the developed world kept them closed which might attract a lot of people without the skills to earn much, but it's not something you can derive from first principles.
The problem is more that most of the developing world would move to the UK with no intention of looking for a job, but purely to claim benefits and free health and education, they would be fools if they didn't.
Nearly a million people visiting food banks and rising.....kids going to school hungry because their parents are struggling.......
103 businessmen with an average income of over £5,000,000 write to the Telegraph telling them it's crucial for the Tories to win the election.....
I'm starting to think this might be the most important election in my lifetime.
Because it would be so much better if those businessmen decided it would be better for their business to relocate to India or Malaysia, that would cure the problem with food banks and parents struggling right away.... oh wait!
I can't see Karen Brady moving West Ham to India. It would be great, but it's not going to happen. Stratford is far enough. A nice, new subsidised home from Boris and the government.
That's one saved then. What about the other thousand of businessmen and women across the country ?
We'll stick around. The vast majority of others will too.
Yes, I noticed that happening in France when Hollande was elected, they stuck around waiting for the next Eurostar to London.
The vast majority of French companies are still in France, but they are struggling because of labour laws we do not have (and no-one is going to introduce) and because they do not have any control over their currency. Like you, I am delighted that we have benefited from an influx of highly-qualified, ambitious, young French immigrants. We get their top talent, they get our unproductive retirees. Isn't the EU great?
As the 'unproductive retirees' are spending their savings and pensions they're an economic boost to the areas they retire to.
We also got a few hundred thousand East European Roma.
But as long as places like Rotherham get the economic and cultural enrichment they bring rather than Royal Leamington Spa I guess that doesn't bother you.
My guess is that there are probably as many Romanian gypsies in Leamington as there are in Rotherham. Do you have any figures?
You should read the French, Spanish and Portuguese press to see the costs those countries are having to assume to look after our pensioners. Those are costs we would be assuming otherwise - probably even more so, in fact, given that things illnesses relating hypothermia are less of an issue in southern Europe.
That's not required. What you do need is for a high enough proportion of the people who show up to get jobs and pay taxes compared to the proportion who live on welfare. You can make the argument that they wouldn't, especially if the UK opened its borders while the rest of the developed world kept them closed which might attract a lot of people without the skills to earn much, but it's not something you can derive from first principles.
Yes it is required. You either have a free market or you don't, a welfare system knocks the market into a cocked hat. Under a free immigration system you might get net economic benefits, but if we excluded those likely to claim benefits, we'd get even greater economic benefits. So the Government really ought to get involved.
However charging a capitation fee might be reasonable, you could base it on five years' average tax and NI receipts per head and regard it as a prepayment for services
No it is not Robert. That is a stupid analogy. The Government, quite rightly, are charged with the control of our borders and as such are the only organisation that can properly enact the public's view on who should or should not enter the country. If the public choose to have a system of controls on place based upon a broad spectrum of benefits and costs to the country from immigration (as in a points system) then it is the government who is tasked with putting that into action.
The problem as I have long seen it with your position is that you believe we should have unfettered immigration so as to benefit business but at the same time business should not be asked to deal with or pay for any costs or problems arising from the immigration. Personally I think that if you as a business want a migrant to come and do a job for you then it is the business which should be responsible for all the costs of that employee from the time they arrive in the country to the time they leave. That includes having to pay the costs of whatever benefits and services they are due if the business decides they no longer have work for them. And that should apply until the migrant either leaves the country again or gets alternative employment. Business should be responsible for the costs of migration just as much as they benefit from it.
That's not a very different view from the one I proposed with my £50,000 suggestion, except in that it moves the burden from the individual and to the employing business.
Which is as it should be. The way you have proposed it only those working in extremely high paid jobs or with inherent wealth would be able to afford to move for work whilst the business can get all the benefits with non of the risks. Making the business responsible for the true costs of migration (and of course they already reap the benefits) would re-balance the system.
No? You think points systems are all sweetness and light? Canada has a points system. Have you seen its numbers of immigrants. A country with a far smaller population nthan the UK has about 250,000 immigrants a year. It has a large immigrant population. Both Canada and Australia rank higher than the UK in terms of net immigration per size of population.
If skilled workers generate increase in economic activity then they will also generate a demand for so called unskilled labour. EU workers of course can move where they want in the EU and as their own countries prosperity increases they can easily move back. Young people will most likely move around like this. Thats not to say that free movement should not operate within rules. There are already rules and those rules can be changed as apprpriate. Rules are there for changing. UKIP do nothing in the EU parliament and offer nothing positive in this respect. Only 'ugly nativism'.
What a lot of illiterate cut-and-pastery and cant, why do you bother. I know you have your latest sound byte handed you by CCHQ ("nativism"), and that you are trying hard to get it into every post, but try to at least use it in a place that makes sense.
A points based system if the very opposite of "nativism", although you would need an IQ and a pulse to understand that, it means accepting anyone, from anywhere, of any colour, from any culture that is beneficial to the country, in terms of their skills and abilities, suitability to work and ability to contribute.
Not necessarily, you could give people three points for being white, or if that was too shocking use approximate proxies for that like points for having ancestors from x, y and z.
No? You think points systems are all sweetness and light? Canada has a points system. Have you seen its numbers of immigrants. A country with a far smaller population nthan the UK has about 250,000 immigrants a year. It has a large immigrant population. Both Canada and Australia rank higher than the UK in terms of net immigration per size of population.
If skilled workers generate increase in economic activity then they will also generate a demand for so called unskilled labour. EU workers of course can move where they want in the EU and as their own countries prosperity increases they can easily move back. Young people will most likely move around like this. Thats not to say that free movement should not operate within rules. There are already rules and those rules can be changed as apprpriate. Rules are there for changing. UKIP do nothing in the EU parliament and offer nothing positive in this respect. Only 'ugly nativism'.
What a lot of illiterate cut-and-pastery and cant, why do you bother. I know you have your latest sound byte handed you by CCHQ ("nativism"), and that you are trying hard to get it into every post, but try to at least use it in a place that makes sense.
A points based system if the very opposite of "nativism", although you would need an IQ and a pulse to understand that, it means accepting anyone, from anywhere, of any colour, from any culture that is beneficial to the country, in terms of their skills and abilities, suitability to work and ability to contribute.
Not necessarily, you could give people three points for being white, or if that was too shocking use approximate proxies for that like points for having ancestors from x, y and z.
Both of which would, I hope, be completely unacceptable to any except the tiny number of BNP nutters. That is rather something of a logical fallacy you are proposing there Edmund and it does nothing to invalidate the basic idea.
My guess is that there are probably as many Romanian gypsies in Leamington as there are in Rotherham. Do you have any figures?
You should read the French, Spanish and Portuguese press to see the costs those countries are having to assume to look after our pensioners. Those are costs we would be assuming otherwise - probably even more so, in fact, given that things illnesses relating hypothermia are less of an issue in southern Europe.
Assuming they are getting State pensions, they should be recharging the NHS. In any insurance-based system, British pensioners should be paying their way. Portugal I believe has a free-at-point-of-use healthcare system like hours but again should only be paying for those not in receipt of a State pension.
No? You think points systems are all sweetness and light? Canada has a points system. Have you seen its numbers of immigrants. A country with a far smaller population nthan the UK has about 250,000 immigrants a year. It has a large immigrant population. Both Canada and Australia rank higher than the UK in terms of net immigration per size of population.
If skilled workers generate increase in economic activity then they will also generate a demand for so called unskilled labour. EU workers of course can move where they want in the EU and as their own countries prosperity increases they can easily move back. Young people will most likely move around like this. Thats not to say that free movement should not operate within rules. There are already rules and those rules can be changed as apprpriate. Rules are there for changing. UKIP do nothing in the EU parliament and offer nothing positive in this respect. Only 'ugly nativism'.
What a lot of illiterate cut-and-pastery and cant, why do you bother. I know you have your latest sound byte handed you by CCHQ ("nativism"), and that you are trying hard to get it into every post, but try to at least use it in a place that makes sense.
A points based system if the very opposite of "nativism", although you would need an IQ and a pulse to understand that, it means accepting anyone, from anywhere, of any colour, from any culture that is beneficial to the country, in terms of their skills and abilities, suitability to work and ability to contribute.
Not necessarily, you could give people three points for being white, or if that was too shocking use approximate proxies for that like points for having ancestors from x, y and z.
You could, but they don't.
The kippers propose using the Australian system, for which you get points by and large for your skills, your qualifications, the languages you speak, your age, and having a job offer or skills that match against current shortages. It doesn't mention ancestry, skin colour, culture or anything that could be considered a proxy for your racial heritage. A case in point, I (just) dont have enough points unless I get a job offer, my brown skinned Asian wife who has broadly similar qualifications to me, but is a few years younger just squeaks in.
Mr. Jessop, the PM ought to have advisers who can point out when his policies are crazy.
Entirely OT: anybody played the first two Witcher games? Thinking of getting (comes out in May) the third.
My guess (and it is just a guess) is that the advisers are people from charities and elsewhere who want it to happen 'think of the children!', combined with experts who want to sell their skills, knowledge and technical gubbins.
Even if criminals can subvert those gubbins, at the cost of inconveniencing everyone else.
In a few years we'll have to work out what we do with our son wrt t'Internet. We could try to child-protect our 'net connections, but then he'll just view stuff on other people's mobiles or round friends' houses.
Or perhaps we'll just talk to him about it, even if that's embarrassing to all of us.
My guess is that there are probably as many Romanian gypsies in Leamington as there are in Rotherham. Do you have any figures?
You should read the French, Spanish and Portuguese press to see the costs those countries are having to assume to look after our pensioners. Those are costs we would be assuming otherwise - probably even more so, in fact, given that things illnesses relating hypothermia are less of an issue in southern Europe.
Assuming they are getting State pensions, they should be recharging the NHS. In any insurance-based system, British pensioners should be paying their way. Portugal I believe has a free-at-point-of-use healthcare system like hours but again should only be paying for those not in receipt of a State pension.
I have no stats or anything on this but I'm sure I've heard of quite a few cases of old Brits coming back home simply because they prefer the NHS. There were also items on the news when the pound fell against the Euro and the retired Brits in Euroland were being hit.
My guess is that if we left the EU the rest of Europe would be unlikely to kick the Brits out that are already there.
No it is not Robert. That is a stupid analogy. The Government, quite rightly, are charged with the control of our borders and as such are the only organisation that can properly enact the public's view on who should or should not enter the country. If the public choose to have a system of controls on place based upon a broad spectrum of benefits and costs to the country from immigration (as in a points system) then it is the government who is tasked with putting that into action.
The problem as I have long seen it with your position is that you believe we should have unfettered immigration so as to benefit business but at the same time business should not be asked to deal with or pay for any costs or problems arising from the immigration. Personally I think that if you as a business want a migrant to come and do a job for you then it is the business which should be responsible for all the costs of that employee from the time they arrive in the country to the time they leave. That includes having to pay the costs of whatever benefits and services they are due if the business decides they no longer have work for them. And that should apply until the migrant either leaves the country again or gets alternative employment. Business should be responsible for the costs of migration just as much as they benefit from it.
That's not a very different view from the one I proposed with my £50,000 suggestion, except in that it moves the burden from the individual and to the employing business.
Which is as it should be. The way you have proposed it only those working in extremely high paid jobs or with inherent wealth would be able to afford to move for work whilst the business can get all the benefits with non of the risks. Making the business responsible for the true costs of migration (and of course they already reap the benefits) would re-balance the system.
Does it matter who pays it, so long as it is paid?
You would get ambitious graduates who didn't mind borrowing cash to get access to opportunities in the UK, plus you would get large corporates willing to pay to move staff around.
The point is that migrants would pay for their externalities.
My guess is that there are probably as many Romanian gypsies in Leamington as there are in Rotherham. Do you have any figures?
You should read the French, Spanish and Portuguese press to see the costs those countries are having to assume to look after our pensioners. Those are costs we would be assuming otherwise - probably even more so, in fact, given that things illnesses relating hypothermia are less of an issue in southern Europe.
Assuming they are getting State pensions, they should be recharging the NHS. In any insurance-based system, British pensioners should be paying their way. Portugal I believe has a free-at-point-of-use healthcare system like hours but again should only be paying for those not in receipt of a State pension.
Yes, Portugal does and it has - so I am told - more or less collapsed. Much worse than ours.
That's not required. What you do need is for a high enough proportion of the people who show up to get jobs and pay taxes compared to the proportion who live on welfare. You can make the argument that they wouldn't, especially if the UK opened its borders while the rest of the developed world kept them closed which might attract a lot of people without the skills to earn much, but it's not something you can derive from first principles.
Yes it is required. You either have a free market or you don't, a welfare system knocks the market into a cocked hat. Under a free immigration system you might get net economic benefits, but if we excluded those likely to claim benefits, we'd get even greater economic benefits. So the Government really ought to get involved.
However charging a capitation fee might be reasonable, you could base it on five years' average tax and NI receipts per head and regard it as a prepayment for services
No, a free market isn't a binary "have one or not" thing - there's a huge variety of models, and and they're all predicated on some degree of government activism. This is more obvious where the government is creating new statutory monopolies, for instance by expanding the scope of IP, rather than things like land ownership where you're so used to the underlying government activism that you hardly notice it at all. As far as benefits go, some of the most free-market people like Falkvinge advocate a solid benefits safety net to allow people to take risks starting new businesses without worrying that they'll end up homeless if they fail, and nearly everyone thinks that the government should limit downside risks by letting people declare personal bankruptcy, for similar reasons.
Your claim that selectively excluding some people is sure to produce better outcomes is wrong, because you're missing the cost of enforcing the policy, and the losses when you get it wrong. Compare, "People on short business trips from the US are generally a net positive, but we could get a bigger net positive by making them take undergo extensive medical examinations to be sure they don't bring in infectious diseases or end up costing the NHS".
My guess is that there are probably as many Romanian gypsies in Leamington as there are in Rotherham. Do you have any figures?
You should read the French, Spanish and Portuguese press to see the costs those countries are having to assume to look after our pensioners. Those are costs we would be assuming otherwise - probably even more so, in fact, given that things illnesses relating hypothermia are less of an issue in southern Europe.
Assuming they are getting State pensions, they should be recharging the NHS. In any insurance-based system, British pensioners should be paying their way. Portugal I believe has a free-at-point-of-use healthcare system like hours but again should only be paying for those not in receipt of a State pension.
I have no stats or anything on this but I'm sure I've heard of quite a few cases of old Brits coming back home simply because they prefer the NHS. There were also items on the news when the pound fell against the Euro and the retired Brits in Euroland were being hit.
My guess is that if we left the EU the rest of Europe would be unlikely to kick the Brits out that are already there.
When I chatted to Tom Sharpe, about two years before his death, he told be he'd moved to Spain because he preferred the free health care there. And the weather was better.
Of course, he may well have been paying tax on his book royalties in Spain.
That's one saved then. What about the other thousand of businessmen and women across the country ?
We'll stick around. The vast majority of others will too.
Yes, I noticed that happening in France when Hollande was elected, they stuck around waiting for the next Eurostar to London.
The vast majority of French companies are still in France, but they are struggling because of labour laws we do not have (and no-one is going to introduce) and because they do not have any control over their currency. Like you, I am delighted that we have benefited from an influx of highly-qualified, ambitious, young French immigrants. We get their top talent, they get our unproductive retirees. Isn't the EU great?
As the 'unproductive retirees' are spending their savings and pensions they're an economic boost to the areas they retire to.
We also got a few hundred thousand East European Roma.
But as long as places like Rotherham get the economic and cultural enrichment they bring rather than Royal Leamington Spa I guess that doesn't bother you.
My guess is that there are probably as many Romanian gypsies in Leamington as there are in Rotherham. Do you have any figures?
I fear Surbiton will ask why you added the word 'gypsies'.
From this Rotherham council report:
' The Roma population has increased from none in 2004 to an estimated 3,700 in 2012 and continues to grow through migration and natural change. '
It also mentions that these Roma migrated from Slovakia and the Czech Republic, Romanian Roma would not have been allowed to enter at that time.
There are now media reports of up to 7,500 Roma in Rotherham.
Needless to say that just as the Roma are concentrated in a town which is noted for its deprivation, the areas within Rotherham where the Roma are concentrated are among the most deprived within the borough.
Does it matter who pays it, so long as it is paid?
You would get ambitious graduates who didn't mind borrowing cash to get access to opportunities in the UK, plus you would get large corporates willing to pay to move staff around.
The point is that migrants would pay for their externalities.
Yes it does matter. Making the individual pay it would shut off a large number of people who might be of service to the country but who simply would never consider taking on that sort of debt or risk. And again it removes any sort of responsibility from the one player who benefits the most - the company that is employing the migrant. If a company wants to use migrant Labour they should shoulder the costs of such a policy. Not the taxpayer and not the individual migrant.
You appear to be looking at this as a system to prevent migration. I am looking at it as a system to make migration fair, cost effective and a benefit to all parties involved (taxpayer, company and migrant) rather than just to the company.
So by that argument we should have open borders, and accept people from around the world anyone should be able to come to the UK and pitch for any job, to give the maximum access to talent and the maximum competition for wages, can see why employers like it, not sure it will go down so well with the people having their wages competed down.
Except for the problem of our free healthcare and education it might work.
And benefits. The free market model is predicated on people living in their wits, not getting state support if they fall on hard times. Otherwise you drastically reduce the risk involved in immigration. rcs1k's approach IMO only works if you have no welfare state.
Articulately put: It is not migration but bennies! This applies to the internal and extern wally sourced population.
Her Majesty's Government should only have a duty-of-care to those under-18 and those over-75: All else should work for their daily-bread. Obviously provisos will be required - those deemed to be disabled, mad or maxing-out on their legal tax-avoidence/publicly-funded-pension-funds - but no-one should expect that the stat....
FFS Junior!
This was my fourth attempt. And still "vanilla" fecks-up...!
Can we cull some features? Posting on here is like articulating sensibly a view-point from Wodger or SoWo!!!
Mr. Politics, I can't recall for certain but I think I criticised Osborne for that at the time. Also, using public funds is different to commanding private enterprise to invest in certain projects.
I'm not partisan when it comes to political criticism. Yesterday I said Cameron ought to be thrashed around the head and neck with a large haddock until he has the vaguest understanding of how the internet works beaten into him.
Miliband's policy is crackers. One can only assume the Happy Warrior encountered a Dark Enchantress who cast a confusion spell upon him.
Point of order: most people have little more than a vague understanding of how the Internet works. Heck, I've been working on and off in and around low-level Internet protocols for nearly twenty years, and I'm fuzzy on lots of it.
And that's one of the problems with schemes to limit what people can see and do on t'Internet: it is so complex technically and broad in terms of delivery that it is easy to drive a coach and horses through most schemes.
Having said that, the other day I saw a CBeebies program that did a passable basic explanation of the way data is packeted for sending. It was quite impressive that they're trying to teach that sort of thing to babies. ;-)
Not only are the Tories promising to get 27 countries to unanimously agree to change to EU, in two years, for no particular benefit to themselves, they're also intending to stop teenage boys looking at porn on the internet. You can't complain they lack ambition.
Good grief - just seen the 'happy warrior' thing. How can he be so emotionally weak that he needs that sort of stuff? The man's a child not a potential PM.
Mr. Politics, I can't recall for certain but I think I criticised Osborne for that at the time. Also, using public funds is different to commanding private enterprise to invest in certain projects.
I'm not partisan when it comes to political criticism. Yesterday I said Cameron ought to be thrashed around the head and neck with a large haddock until he has the vaguest understanding of how the internet works beaten into him.
Miliband's policy is crackers. One can only assume the Happy Warrior encountered a Dark Enchantress who cast a confusion spell upon him.
Point of order: most people have little more than a vague understanding of how the Internet works. Heck, I've been working on and off in and around low-level Internet protocols for nearly twenty years, and I'm fuzzy on lots of it.
And that's one of the problems with schemes to limit what people can see and do on t'Internet: it is so complex technically and broad in terms of delivery that it is easy to drive a coach and horses through most schemes.
Having said that, the other day I saw a CBeebies program that did a passable basic explanation of the way data is packeted for sending. It was quite impressive that they're trying to teach that sort of thing to babies. ;-)
Not only are the Tories promising to get 27 countries to unanimously agree to change to EU, in two years, for no particular benefit to themselves, they're also intending to stop teenage boys looking at porn on the internet. You can't complain they lack ambition.
There's another way of looking at it. Put these barriers into place to stop casual viewing, and children will learn how to circumvent them. This will increase their IT skills and benefit the country.
Yes, Cameron's secret plan is to increase childrens' IT skills.
No? You think points systems are all sweetness and light? Canada has a points system. Have you seen its numbers of immigrants. A country with a far smaller population nthan the UK has about 250,000 immigrants a year. It has a large immigrant population. Both Canada and Australia rank higher than the UK in terms of net immigration per size of population.
If skilled workers generate increase in economic activity then they will also generate a demand for so called unskilled labour. EU workers of course can move where they want in the EU and as their own countries prosperity increases they can easily move back. Young people will most likely move around like this. Thats not to say that free movement should not operate within rules. There are already rules and those rules can be changed as apprpriate. Rules are there for changing. UKIP do nothing in the EU parliament and offer nothing positive in this respect. Only 'ugly nativism'.
What a lot of illiterate cut-and-pastery and cant, why do you bother. I know you have your latest sound byte handed you by CCHQ ("nativism"), and that you are trying hard to get it into every post, but try to at least use it in a place that makes sense.
A points based system if the very opposite of "nativism", although you would need an IQ and a pulse to understand that, it means accepting anyone, from anywhere, of any colour, from any culture that is beneficial to the country, in terms of their skills and abilities, suitability to work and ability to contribute.
Not necessarily, you could give people three points for being white, or if that was too shocking use approximate proxies for that like points for having ancestors from x, y and z.
Both of which would, I hope, be completely unacceptable to any except the tiny number of BNP nutters. That is rather something of a logical fallacy you are proposing there Edmund and it does nothing to invalidate the basic idea.
As you say my post didn't invalidate the idea of points systems, and I didn't intend it to - just making a pedantic point about points systems.
Good grief - just seen the 'happy warrior' thing. How can he be so emotionally weak that he needs that sort of stuff? The man's a child not a potential PM.
And how stupid are his minders to leave such a document to be found? There is absolutely no upside in revealing that sort of briefing/training note.
@paulhutcheon: New blog: French diplomat refuses to deny memo claim that Sturgeon "didn't see Ed Miliband as PM material". http://t.co/hVkTMG58W6
This Consul-General uses his words very carefully. Firstly, he said, the discussion between the women did not concern "their political preferences" . Why choose the word "their" ?. No one suggested that the French Ambassador revealed her preference.
Now, the new line:
"There has been no preference expressed regarding the outcome of the elections"
but he is hotly not commenting on Sturgeon "didn't see Ed Miliband as PM material".
So some part of the memo clearly was true !
My suspicion now is that the whole thing was true. Sturgeon knows that the French are already embarrassed about this and cannot confirm her words this side of the election. She herself being a politician will simply flatly lie.
Political-Betting proports to be a "betting" site. Is betting still verbotan for under-eighteens? Porn-filters, betting-filters; Gabble-filters: Meaningless and under-deliverable.
The importation of foreign nationals to do the jobs “natives won’t do” has been utterly disastrous in Western nations as well as degrading to everyone involved. Making the case that it is an economic negative because of the drain on social services is also important.
Importing skilled workers has the same kind of wage deflation effect as bringing in unskilled workers, as we know from the American experience with H1-B visas. It also renders national investment in education and infrastructure unimportant because companies will simply import educated workers that can provide labor at a cheaper price.
Is Australia some paradise that isn’t having any problems with multiculturalism and immigration? Right now, the country is experiencing some trouble keeping its more vibrant citizens from running off to join ISIS.
UKIP should focus on improving opportunities and education for British workers, just like any patriotic party. That will lead to greater economic growth and social cohesion because every class and institution will have a stake in the success of everyone else. As it stands, the country is simply a pile of resources to be looted, rather than something you belong to.
Still, UKIP deserves some credit for speaking the truth on unskilled immigration. So one cheer for them, but no more.
So by that argument we should have open borders, and accept people from around the world anyone should be able to come to the UK and pitch for any job, to give the maximum access to talent and the maximum competition for wages, can see why employers like it, not sure it will go down so well with the people having their wages competed down.
Except for the problem of our free healthcare and education it might work.
And benefits. The free market model is predicated on people living in their wits, not getting state support if they fall on hard times. Otherwise you drastically reduce the risk involved in immigration. rcs1k's approach IMO only works if you have no welfare state.
Articulately put: It is not migration but bennies! This applies to the internal and extern wally sourced population.
Her Majesty's Government should only have a duty-of-care to those under-18 and those over-75: All else should work for their daily-bread. Obviously provisos will be required - those deemed to be disabled, mad or maxing-out on their legal tax-avoidence/publicly-funded-pension-funds - but no-one should expect that the stat....
FFS Junior!
This was my fourth attempt. And still "vanilla" fecks-up...!
Can we cull some features? Posting on here is like articulating sensibly a view-point from Wodger or SoWo!!!
My God, something for nothing and the "free marketer" still isn't satisfied with the bargain he's getting. Tells you all you need to know about them, really?
"In the debate Nigel Farage highlighted the issue of immigrants with HIV coming to Britain and receiving treatment on the NHS. Would you support or oppose people coming to live in the UK being banned from receiving treatment on the NHS for a period of five years?"
No? You think points systems are all sweetness and light? Canada has a points system. Have you seen its numbers of immigrants. A country with a far smaller population nthan the UK has about 250,000 immigrants a year. It has a large immigrant population. Both Canada and Australia rank higher than the UK in terms of net immigration per size of population.
If skilled workers generate increase in economic activity then they will also generate a demand for so called unskilled labour. EU workers of course can move where they want in the EU and as their own countries prosperity increases they can easily move back. Young people will most likely move around like this. Thats not to say that free movement should not operate within rules. There are already rules and those rules can be changed as apprpriate. Rules are there for changing. UKIP do nothing in the EU parliament and offer nothing positive in this respect. Only 'ugly nativism'.
What a lot of illiterate cut-and-pastery and cant, why do you bother. I know you have your latest sound byte handed you by CCHQ ("nativism"), and that you are trying hard to get it into every post, but try to at least use it in a place that makes sense.
A points based system if the very opposite of "nativism", although you would need an IQ and a pulse to understand that, it means accepting anyone, from anywhere, of any colour, from any culture that is beneficial to the country, in terms of their skills and abilities, suitability to work and ability to contribute.
Not necessarily, you could give people three points for being white, or if that was too shocking use approximate proxies for that like points for having ancestors from x, y and z.
Ancestry is a the key element in most countries, notably Israel and India, citizenship and immigration policies, and rightly so. British Zimbabweans have an inherent right to seek and be granted asylum here.
You should read the French, Spanish and Portuguese press to see the costs those countries are having to assume to look after our pensioners. Those are costs we would be assuming otherwise - probably even more so, in fact, given that things illnesses relating hypothermia are less of an issue in southern Europe.
There are complaints everywhere about 'foreigners'.
But the British retirees to Spain etc are for the most part a cash cow to the local economy especially considering two other factors:
1) They buy property, so helping the local construction indsutry.
2) Few people retire to a foreign country without first having spent time there. A British retiree to Spain might have had 40+ years of Spanish holidays pumping money into the Spanish economy before moving there permanently.
@paulhutcheon: New blog: French diplomat refuses to deny memo claim that Sturgeon "didn't see Ed Miliband as PM material". http://t.co/hVkTMG58W6
This Consul-General uses his words very carefully. Firstly, he said, the discussion between the women did not concern "their political preferences" . Why choose the word "their" ?. No one suggested that the French Ambassador revealed her preference.
Now, the new line:
"There has been no preference expressed regarding the outcome of the elections"
but he is hotly not commenting on Sturgeon "didn't see Ed Miliband as PM material".
So some part of the memo clearly was true !
My suspicion now is that the whole thing was true. Sturgeon knows that the French are already embarrassed about this and cannot confirm her words this side of the election. She herself being a politician will simply flatly lie.
"In the debate Nigel Farage highlighted the issue of immigrants with HIV coming to Britain and receiving treatment on the NHS. Would you support or oppose people coming to live in the UK being banned from receiving treatment on the NHS for a period of five years?"
Support a ban 50%, Oppose a ban 34%
Embarrassed that 34% of people don't support a ban. I have a timeshare I can sell them.
The "happy warrior" note does give us an insight into Ed Miliband's mind. While the concept originated in Wordsworth, it is most associated with Hubert Humphrey (though Barack Obama used the phrase to refer to Joe Biden). I expect that's what Ed Miliband was looking to channel and it may well give us an insight into how he sees himself in political terms.
"In the debate Nigel Farage highlighted the issue of immigrants with HIV coming to Britain and receiving treatment on the NHS. Would you support or oppose people coming to live in the UK being banned from receiving treatment on the NHS for a period of five years?"
Support a ban 50%, Oppose a ban 34%
What exactly does 'being banned from receiving treatment on the NHS" mean?
"In the debate Nigel Farage highlighted the issue of immigrants with HIV coming to Britain and receiving treatment on the NHS. Would you support or oppose people coming to live in the UK being banned from receiving treatment on the NHS for a period of five years?"
Support a ban 50%, Oppose a ban 34%
What exactly does 'being banned from receiving treatment on the NHS" mean?
I presume it would mean not being free at the point of use. The issue with hiv infected people coming to the UK to live is far larger than just their nhs treatment.
"In the debate Nigel Farage highlighted the issue of immigrants with HIV coming to Britain and receiving treatment on the NHS. Would you support or oppose people coming to live in the UK being banned from receiving treatment on the NHS for a period of five years?"
Support a ban 50%, Oppose a ban 34%
What exactly does 'being banned from receiving treatment on the NHS" mean?
You should read the French, Spanish and Portuguese press to see the costs those countries are having to assume to look after our pensioners. Those are costs we would be assuming otherwise - probably even more so, in fact, given that things illnesses relating hypothermia are less of an issue in southern Europe.
There are complaints everywhere about 'foreigners'.
But the British retirees to Spain etc are for the most part a cash cow to the local economy especially considering two other factors:
1) They buy property, so helping the local construction indsutry.
2) Few people retire to a foreign country without first having spent time there. A British retiree to Spain might have had 40+ years of Spanish holidays pumping money into the Spanish economy before moving there permanently.
Most EU immigrants here are in work and are therefore a cash cow for us. They buy things from our shops, buy or rent their homes, pay taxes and so on. Indeed, don't recent figures show that the recovery has been built on the back of immigrants? We import young, healthy ones from Europe and tend to export older, less healthy ones:
I'd argue that most of the problematic immigration comes from outside the EU and mainly from specific parts of the world that are clearly identifiable and which we should be able to do something about.
"In the debate Nigel Farage highlighted the issue of immigrants with HIV coming to Britain and receiving treatment on the NHS. Would you support or oppose people coming to live in the UK being banned from receiving treatment on the NHS for a period of five years?"
Support a ban 50%, Oppose a ban 34%
Embarrassed that 34% of people don't support a ban. I have a timeshare I can sell them.
Yep, much better to leave them untreated and spreading disease.
Nearly a million people visiting food banks and rising.....kids going to school hungry because their parents are struggling.......
103 businessmen with an average income of over £5,000,000 write to the Telegraph telling them it's crucial for the Tories to win the election.....
I'm starting to think this might be the most important election in my lifetime.
Because it would be so much better if those businessmen decided it would be better for their business to relocate to India or Malaysia, that would cure the problem with food banks and parents struggling right away.... oh wait!
I can't see Karen Brady moving West Ham to India. It would be great, but it's not going to happen. Stratford is far enough. A nice, new subsidised home from Boris and the government.
That's one saved then. What about the other thousand of businessmen and women across the country ?
We'll stick around. The vast majority of others will too.
Yes, I noticed that happening in France when Hollande was elected, they stuck around waiting for the next Eurostar to London.
The vast majority of French companies are still in France, but they are struggling because of labour laws we do not have (and no-one is going to introduce) and because they do not have any control over their currency. Like you, I am delighted that we have benefited from an influx of highly-qualified, ambitious, young French immigrants. We get their top talent, they get our unproductive retirees. Isn't the EU great?
As the 'unproductive retirees' are spending their savings and pensions they're an economic boost to the areas they retire to.
We also got a few hundred thousand East European Roma.
But as long as places like Rotherham get the economic and cultural enrichment they bring rather than Royal Leamington Spa I guess that doesn't bother you.
Well said Another Richard.
Don't bother with Surbiton on immigration,he wants open borders for everyone.
"In the debate Nigel Farage highlighted the issue of immigrants with HIV coming to Britain and receiving treatment on the NHS. Would you support or oppose people coming to live in the UK being banned from receiving treatment on the NHS for a period of five years?"
Support a ban 50%, Oppose a ban 34%
What exactly does 'being banned from receiving treatment on the NHS" mean?
No freebies.
Well, that's very different from the wording of the question.
You should read the French, Spanish and Portuguese press to see the costs those countries are having to assume to look after our pensioners. Those are costs we would be assuming otherwise - probably even more so, in fact, given that things illnesses relating hypothermia are less of an issue in southern Europe.
There are complaints everywhere about 'foreigners'.
But the British retirees to Spain etc are for the most part a cash cow to the local economy especially considering two other factors:
1) They buy property, so helping the local construction indsutry.
2) Few people retire to a foreign country without first having spent time there. A British retiree to Spain might have had 40+ years of Spanish holidays pumping money into the Spanish economy before moving there permanently.
Most EU immigrants here are in work and are therefore a cash cow for us. They buy things from our shops, buy or rent their homes, pay taxes and so on. Indeed, don't recent figures show that the recovery has been built on the back of immigrants? We import young, healthy ones from Europe and tend to export older, less healthy ones:
I'd argue that most of the problematic immigration comes from outside the EU and mainly from specific parts of the world that are clearly identifiable and which we should be able to do something about.
"In the debate Nigel Farage highlighted the issue of immigrants with HIV coming to Britain and receiving treatment on the NHS. Would you support or oppose people coming to live in the UK being banned from receiving treatment on the NHS for a period of five years?"
Support a ban 50%, Oppose a ban 34%
Embarrassed that 34% of people don't support a ban. I have a timeshare I can sell them.
Yep, much better to leave them untreated and spreading disease.
As a factual point who does pay the health and social costs of British people who have retired abroad ?
Is it the retirees themselves ? Is it the local state health / social care system ? Is it the NHS through being recharged by the foreign health / social care system ?
Good grief - just seen the 'happy warrior' thing. How can he be so emotionally weak that he needs that sort of stuff? The man's a child not a potential PM.
Has it been confirmed by a reliable source that those were Miliband's notes? When I saw the story and the notes I thought it was a spoof.
You should read the French, Spanish and Portuguese press to see the costs those countries are having to assume to look after our pensioners. Those are costs we would be assuming otherwise - probably even more so, in fact, given that things illnesses relating hypothermia are less of an issue in southern Europe.
There are complaints everywhere about
Most EU immigrants here are in work and are therefore a cash cow for us. They buy things from our shops, buy or rent their homes, pay taxes and so on. Indeed, don't recent figures show that the recovery has been built on the back of immigrants? We import young, healthy ones from Europe and tend to export older, less healthy ones:
I'd argue that most of the problematic immigration comes from outside the EU and mainly from specific parts of the world that are clearly identifiable and which we should be able to do something about.
The difference is that the retirees in Spain are generally much richer than usual British pensioners and spend a lot of money in Spain.
They also have a positive effect on jobs in Spain as jobs are created by their emigration and none are taken by them. The "Import" (a word you previously said was unsuitable for describing humans, yet are using it here) of immigrants to work in the UK leads to lower wages for the people already at the lower end of society and more profit for the bosses who employ them
So says even the guardian
'Mass immigration increases inequality. This is the unpalatable fact the liberal left in Britain refuses to accept. Markets are imperfect instruments. But it is not necessary to subscribe to free market economic theory to believe that large increases in supply tend to drive down the price. And the price of labour is the wage.
The impact on wage rates of this increase in competition was dramatic. Christian Dustmann at University College London has provided clear evidence on the evolution of wage rates in the former West Germany. The 15th percentile of the wage distribution is the level at which only 15% of wages are lower. In West Germany, at the 15th percentile, real wages have fallen almost continuously since the mid-1990s. At the 50th percentile, where half get more and half get less, the reduction has been less sharp.
But the fall had set in by the early 2000s. At the 85th percentile, the mirror image of the 15th, real wages grew strongly, reaping the benefits of the recovery of the economy created by the increase in competitiveness.'
My God, something for nothing and the "free marketer" still isn't satisfied with the bargain he's getting. Tells you all you need to know about them, really?
I help fund this place (including putting my money foward). Just ask Pulpie and Wee-Timmie!
As a factual point who does pay the health and social costs of British people who have retired abroad ?
Is it the retirees themselves ? Is it the local state health / social care system ? Is it the NHS through being recharged by the foreign health / social care system ?
I assume it varies from country to country.
I believe within the EU you'd have to be treated like the locals, but I think the UK is unusual in having a taxpayer funded monopoly on health care. A compulsory medical insurance model is more common.
No? You think points systems are all sweetness and light? Canada has a points system. Have you seen its numbers of immigrants. A country with a far smaller population nthan the UK has about 250,000 immigrants a year. It has a large immigrant population. Both Canada and Australia rank higher than the UK in terms of net immigration per size of population.
If skilled workers generate increase in economic activity then they will also generate a demand for so called unskilled labour. EU workers of course can move where they want in the EU and as their own countries prosperity increases they can easily move back. Young people will most likely move around like this. Thats not to say that free movement should not operate within rules. There are already rules and those rules can be changed as apprpriate. Rules are there for changing. UKIP do nothing in the EU parliament and offer nothing positive in this respect. Only 'ugly nativism'.
What a lot of illiterate cut-and-pastery and cant, why do you bother. I know you have your latest sound byte handed you by CCHQ ("nativism"), and that you are trying hard to get it into every post, but try to at least use it in a place that makes sense.
A points based system if the very opposite of "nativism", although you would need an IQ and a pulse to understand that, it means accepting anyone, from anywhere, of any colour, from any culture that is beneficial to the country, in terms of their skills and abilities, suitability to work and ability to contribute.
Not necessarily, you could give people three points for being white, or if that was too shocking use approximate proxies for that like points for having ancestors from x, y and z.
Ancestry is a the key element in most countries, notably Israel and India, citizenship and immigration policies, and rightly so. British Zimbabweans have an inherent right to seek and be granted asylum here.
This was part of the Japanese policy to deal with their demographic problems. They realized they needed more people but they were worried a bunch of foreigners wouldn't fit in, so they paid people with Japanese grandparents to come over. Unfortunately it turned out that the Brazailian grandchildren of Japanese people act like Brazilians not Japanese people, and Brazilians are the least culturally-Japanese-like people this side of the Hutt Space planets, and they ended up paying them to go away again.
You should read the French, Spanish and Portuguese press to see the costs those countries are having to assume to look after our pensioners. Those are costs we would be assuming otherwise - probably even more so, in fact, given that things illnesses relating hypothermia are less of an issue in southern Europe.
There are complaints everywhere about 'foreigners'.
But the British retirees to Spain etc are for the most part a cash cow to the local economy especially considering two other factors:
1) They buy property, so helping the local construction indsutry.
2) Few people retire to a foreign country without first having spent time there. A British retiree to Spain might have had 40+ years of Spanish holidays pumping money into the Spanish economy before moving there permanently.
Most EU immigrants here are in work and are therefore a cash cow for us. They buy things from our shops, buy or rent their homes, pay taxes and so on. Indeed, don't recent figures show that the recovery has been built on the back of immigrants? We import young, healthy ones from Europe and tend to export older, less healthy ones:
I'd argue that most of the problematic immigration comes from outside the EU and mainly from specific parts of the world that are clearly identifiable and which we should be able to do something about.
The difference is that the retirees in Spain are generally much richer than usual British pensioners and spend a lot of money in Spain.
They also have a positive effect on jobs in Spain as jobs are created by their emigration and none are taken by them. The "Import" (a word you previously said was unsuitable for describing humans, yet are using it here) of immigrants to work in the UK leads to lower wages for the people already at the lower end of society and more profit for the bosses who employ them
Do you have any figures on pensioner expenditure in Spain? Them not being here saves the UK a great deal of money. It also leaves space for working age immigrants who pay taxes and also spend money here.
My God, something for nothing and the "free marketer" still isn't satisfied with the bargain he's getting. Tells you all you need to know about them, really?
I help fund this place (including putting my money foward). Just ask Pulpie and Wee-Timmie!
And your point is caller?
What do you mean by "putting my money forward"? And are you saying you sub OGH?
You should read the French, Spanish and Portuguese press to see the costs those countries are having to assume to look after our pensioners. Those are costs we would be assuming otherwise - probably even more so, in fact, given that things illnesses relating hypothermia are less of an issue in southern Europe.
There are complaints everywhere about 'foreigners'.
But the British retirees to Spain etc are for the most part a cash cow to the local economy especially considering two other factors:
1) They buy property, so helping the local construction indsutry.
2) Few people retire to a foreign country without first having spent time there. A British retiree to Spain might have had 40+ years of Spanish holidays pumping money into the Spanish economy before moving there permanently.
Most EU immigrants here are in work and are therefore a cash cow for us. They buy things from our shops, buy or rent their homes, pay taxes and so on. Indeed, don't recent figures show that the recovery has been built on the back of immigrants? We import young, healthy ones from Europe and tend to export older, less healthy ones:
balance-ailments be able to do something about.
The difference is that the retirees in Spain are generally much richer than usual British pensioners and spend a lot of money in Spain.
They also have a positive effect on jobs in Spain as jobs are created by their emigration and none are taken by them. The "Import" (a word you previously said was unsuitable for describing humans, yet are using it here) of immigrants to work in the UK leads to lower wages for the people already at the lower end of society and more profit for the bosses who employ them
Do you have any figures on pensioner expenditure in Spain? Them not being here saves the UK a great deal of money. It also leaves space for working age immigrants who pay taxes and also spend money here.
Mass immigration of cheap labour to the uk makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. It is as simple as that
You are free to support that, not my problem, I just think it's unfair on the poorest in our society and hence can't vote for a party that encourages it
I am often struck by the similarities between Marxism and libertarianism. Libertarians would no doubt applaud Stalin's abandonment of his own son Yakov when he refused to trade prisoners so as not to show favouritism.
We live in a world where violence -- perpetrating it and preventing it -- is the fundamental fact that social and political organization must deal with. Thus, all property rights come out of the barrel of a gun. Once you realize that, the reason why we prefer the welfare of our fellow citizens to that of non-citizens is (to get all reductionist):
You should read the French, Spanish and Portuguets we would be assuming otherwise - probably even more so, in fact, given that things illnesses relating hypothermia are less of an issue in southern Europe.
There are complaints everywhere about
Most EU immigrants here are in work and are therefore a cash cow for us. They buy things from our shops, buy or rent their homes, pay taxes and so on. Indeed, don't recent figures show that the recovery has been built on the back of immigrants? We import young, healthy ones from Europe and tend to export older, less healthy ones:
I'd argue that most of the problematic immigration comes from outside the EU and mainly from specific parts of the world that are clearly identifiable and which we should be able to do something about.
The difference is that the retirees in Spain are generally much richer than usual British pensioners and spend a lot of money in Spain.
They also have a positive effect on jobs in Spain as jobs are created by their emigration and none are taken by them. The "Import" (a word you previously said was unsuitable for describing humans, yet are using it here) of immigrants to work in the UK leads to lower wages for the people already at the lower end of society and more profit for the bosses who employ them
So says even the guardian
'Mass immigration increases inequality. This is the unpalatable fact the liberal left in Britain refuses to accept. Markets are imperfect instruments. But it is not necessary to subscribe to free market economic theory to believe that large increases in supply tend to drive down the price. And the price of labour is the wage.
The impact on wage rates of this increase in competition was dramatic. Christian Dustmann at University College London has provided clear evidence on the evolution of wage rates in the former West Germany. The 15th percentile of the wage distribution is the level at which only 15% of wages are lower. In West Germany, at the 15th percentile, real wages have fallen almost continuously since the mid-1990s. At the 50th percentile, where half get more and half get less, the reduction has been less sharp.
But the fall had set in by the early 2000s. At the 85th percentile, the mirror image of the 15th, real wages grew strongly, reaping the benefits of the recovery of the economy created by the increase in competitiveness.'
You should read the French, Spanish and Portuguese press to see the costs those countries are having to assume to look after our pensioners. Those are costs we would be assuming otherwise - probably even more so, in fact, given that things illnesses relating hypothermia are less of an issue in southern Europe.
There are complaints everywhere about 'foreigners'.
But the British retirees to Spain etc are for the most part a cash cow to the local economy especially considering two other factors:
1) They buy property, so helping the local construction indsutry.
2) Few people retire to a foreign country without first having spent time there. A British retiree to Spain might have had 40+ years of Spanish holidays pumping money into the Spanish economy before moving there permanently.
Most EU immigrants here are in work and are therefore a cash cow for us. They buy things from our shops, buy or rent their homes, pay taxes and so on. Indeed, don't recent figures show that the recovery has been built on the back of immigrants? We import young, healthy ones from Europe and tend to export older, less healthy ones:
balance-ailments be able to do something about.
The difference is that the retirees in Spain are generally much richer than usual British pensioners and spend a lot of money in Spain.
They also have a positive effect on jobs in Spain as jobs are created by their emigration and none are taken by them. The "Import" (a word you previously said was unsuitable for describing humans, yet are using it here) of immigrants to work in the UK leads to lower wages for the people already at the lower end of society and more profit for the bosses who employ them
Do you have any figures on pensioner expenditure in Spain? Them not being here saves the UK a great deal of money. It also leaves space for working age immigrants who pay taxes and also spend money here.
Mass immigration of cheap labour to the uk makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. It is as simple as that
You are free to support that, not my problem, I just think it's unfair on the poorest in our society and hence can't vote for a party that encourages it
And in the poor area's,it hit's housing,seeing a doc/healthcentres,schools and all round Quality of life.
You should read the French, Spanish and Portuguese press to see the costs those countries are having to assume to look after our pensioners. Those are costs we would be assuming otherwise - probably even more so, in fact, given that things illnesses relating hypothermia are less of an issue in southern Europe.
There are complaints everywhere about 'foreigners'.
But the British retirees to Spain etc are for the most part a cash cow to the local economy especially considering two other factors:
1) They buy property, so helping the local construction indsutry.
2) Few people retire to a foreign country without first having spent time there. A British retiree to Spain might have had 40+ years of Spanish holidays pumping money into the Spanish economy before moving there permanently.
Most EU immigrants here are in work and are therefore a cash cow for us. They buy things from our shops, buy or rent their homes, pay taxes and so on. Indeed, don't recent figures show that the recovery has been built on the back of immigrants? We import young, healthy ones from Europe and tend to export older, less healthy ones:
I'd argue that most of the problematic immigration comes from outside the EU and mainly from specific parts of the world that are clearly identifiable and which we should be able to do something about.
The difference is that the retirees in Spain are generally much richer than usual British pensioners and spend a lot of money in Spain.
They also have a positive effect on jobs in Spain as jobs are created by their emigration and none are taken by them. The "Import" (a word you previously said was unsuitable for describing humans, yet are using it here) of immigrants to work in the UK leads to lower wages for the people already at the lower end of society and more profit for the bosses who employ them
"Simply Red's Mick Hucknall once donated money to former Labour PM Tony Blair. Now, according to the Sun, he supports David Cameron and Nick Clegg.
"If I had to, I would vote for the Coalition - I've liked the Coalition," the paper quotes him saying."
This is the sad depths that the BBC has sunk and has to draw on for its focus on the election today. A reference to a bygone pop singer and his preferences. This after banning all mention of the election because it's Easter Sunday, as someone had suddenly become religious in it's ivory towers.
"Simply Red's Mick Hucknall once donated money to former Labour PM Tony Blair. Now, according to the Sun, he supports David Cameron and Nick Clegg.
"If I had to, I would vote for the Coalition - I've liked the Coalition," the paper quotes him saying."
This is the sad depths that the BBC has sunk and has to draw on for its focus on the election today. A reference to a bygone pop singer and his preferences. This after banning all mention of the election because it's Easter Sunday, as someone had suddenly become religious in it's ivory towers.
Please tell me there was a pun on the name "Simply Red" in the headline?
If not, I am not paying the license fee!
"Simply not Red"? Obvious but on the money (too tight to mention)
Info re medical costs in the EU ..I live in Italy for most of the year and I am given the same medical care as an Italian..the costs are recovered from the UK Gov.
Comments
Under government plans nobody is "commanded" to invest. Miliband thinks they should be but privately admits they can't be.
We also got a few hundred thousand East European Roma.
But as long as places like Rotherham get the economic and cultural enrichment they bring rather than Royal Leamington Spa I guess that doesn't bother you.
And let's acknowledge the serious underlying political point that if you vote Conservative, your own children will be better-looking.
What did you think to include the last word ?
Mr. Tyndall, I'd be surprised if Labour were that low with the SNP on 'just' 35 seats.
Edited extra bit: axed a sentence which was entirely wrong.
That'd imply Labour making few gains in England/Wales, whilst retaining a healthy chunk in Scotland.
Canada has a points system. Have you seen its numbers of immigrants. A country with a far smaller population nthan the UK has about 250,000 immigrants a year. It has a large immigrant population.
Both Canada and Australia rank higher than the UK in terms of net immigration per size of population.
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/mark-collins-immigration-canada-skilled-workers-unskilled-spouses-no-jobs-anyway.
If skilled workers generate increase in economic activity then they will also generate a demand for so called unskilled labour. EU workers of course can move where they want in the EU and as their own countries prosperity increases they can easily move back. Young people will most likely move around like this.
Thats not to say that free movement should not operate within rules. There are already rules and those rules can be changed as apprpriate. Rules are there for changing. UKIP do nothing in the EU parliament and offer nothing positive in this respect. Only 'ugly nativism'.
The taxpayer gave the banks hundreds of billions, still owns siginificant chunks of several of them, and is setting up bank accounts which involved a huge taxpayer subsidy.
The notion that the taxpayers' representatives can't say "Oh, and since that's going to be for house buying, you need to use some of it for house building so the houses are there to be bought" prioritises liberal ideology over basic common sense.
Even if Miliband's plan were bad economics (it isn't), it's excellent politics, and we are in an election campaign.
Reminded me of the day arsenal lost to Leeds utd at highbury in 2003... I was working at IG Sport at the time and w the score at 3-2 in the 92nd min a punter phoned up...
'F1234 here, close my position in the arsenal total goals market'
Me: 'the quote is 5-5.2...you're long at 3.2... That would mean selling at 5. Are you sure you want to do that'
'I want to take my profit, close the position'
'But you're selling at the lowest it can be? You might as well leave it open'
'Whose account is it mine or yours??? I want to sell at 5'
'Ok you sell £200@5 total goals Arsenal vs Leeds. Five so far'
Fair play to him he phoned back 5 mins later and apologised for being so stupid
It seems to be the same with housing:
a) open borders
b) affordable housing
c) a green belt
Pick two.
Only those who reckoned that the opportunities afforded by the UK were worth £50,000 would come here. It would pretty much self select people with skills - and without any government overhead and with the benefit of tax revenues. And if the right price - i.e. considering all the externalities - was £100,000, that would be fine.
The point I'm making is this: governments have been proven terrible at deciding what the right good and services to come into the country are, and abysmal at choosing what industries to invest in. In each case, the market has been much, much better at choosing.
In a "points" system, we'd perpetually have the government peering in the rear view mirror, and they'd spend their time being lobbied by industry groups ("we need more prolog programmers") and by trade unions ("this will drive down the wages of prolog programers!").
The market is wonderful. If we have too few prolog programmers, then the price of prolog programmers will rise. If we have too many, then the price will fall. And the rising and lowering of prices of various types of labour will cause people to choose to learn what skills. When you start moving to a points system, you start changing those incentives. Suddenly, people have to make a choice about not only what demand for a skill will be, but what changes the government will make about the number of people we need with this skill.
A simple "pay for entry" scheme (one which obviously excludes convicted criminals) would be:
1. Better for taxpayers, as it would bring in billions of pounds of revenue
2. Better for individuals, and companies, because it would allow them to make their own decisions
3. Be much cheaper to implement, and not require any additional civil servants or increase the power of politicians
and
4. Be economically more sensible, because economic agents are better at making decisions than governments.
And that's one of the problems with schemes to limit what people can see and do on t'Internet: it is so complex technically and broad in terms of delivery that it is easy to drive a coach and horses through most schemes.
Having said that, the other day I saw a CBeebies program that did a passable basic explanation of the way data is packeted for sending. It was quite impressive that they're trying to teach that sort of thing to babies. ;-)
A points based system if the very opposite of "nativism", although you would need an IQ and a pulse to understand that, it means accepting anyone, from anywhere, of any colour, from any culture that is beneficial to the country, in terms of their skills and abilities, suitability to work and ability to contribute.
There are no rules on free movement that make any different, its about as absolute as it gets within the EU, as DC is going to find out when he trying to change eligibility for benefits and it gets struck down by the ECJ. It is against the EU law to treat any citizen of the EU differently to how you treat your own citizens, period.
http://t.co/hVkTMG58W6
1) Most banks don't have state aid.
2) Those that do aren't run politically. Do you really want those that do to become politicised and decisions to be taken for political rather than business reasons?
Canada and Australia choose to have that many people migrate there. But they also get to choose who those people are. A points system does not mean that any individual country just shuts up shop and stops all migration. It does not even mean that the country has less migration necessarily. What it means is that they get to choose what types of skills they believe the country needs and to filter the migrants accordingly - or even encourage more migration of people with those skills sets.
Claiming that the base numbers of people entering a country invalidates the points system is, quite frankly, ignorant bollocks much like we are used to seeing from you.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/roma-pupils-must-be-better-supported-to-learn-says-ofsted
As a smear attempt that has to be one of the most feeble ever.
Especially coming from someone who supported "British Jobs For British Workers".
Entirely OT: anybody played the first two Witcher games? Thinking of getting (comes out in May) the third.
I don't normally bother engaging with Roger as its a pointless exercise but just had to call him out on this occasion.
The above is crap quite simply. My wife worked in a junior school between 2000 and 2007 . We were always making sandwiches at home to take in to feed the children that did not get breakfast. There were quite a few and it did get worse over that time from a trickle to a flood. We also noticed something else that many new terms children came to school that could speak no English at all. My wife used to get a child that did speak to translate for her to find out what was happening. The huge amounts of money that were then spent on translators and translations and additional staff to assist the English was huge. It took money out of all other budgets to the point that all children then lost out with no school trips lack of new books, lack of equipment parents were asked to buy books for their children or give donations to the school to but stationary.
. In the summer holidays of 2004 I and others went into the school and painted the walls with our own paint as there was no money left for maintenance. Others volunteered their skills. Plumbers carpenters etc at no charge and in their own time. There was a la k of classroom space and the outside hut temporary classroom was condemned as maintenance could not be afforded. And subsequent repairs could not be done.
As a last aside. My wife remains in touch with the school and over the last 3 years their have been dramatic improvements and a new bricked classroom being built.
So Roger please just crawl back under your stone and take that left wing crap with you. To point the finger at this coalition is quite simply a lie. This wholeheartedly started with Labour and has only started to improve under this coalition.
2015 General Election Specials
20 per cent or below - What percentage of Green candidates will save their deposits at the General Election?
As a bet, and I didn't even get that on at top price.
You should read the French, Spanish and Portuguese press to see the costs those countries are having to assume to look after our pensioners. Those are costs we would be assuming otherwise - probably even more so, in fact, given that things illnesses relating hypothermia are less of an issue in southern Europe.
"And let's acknowledge the serious underlying political point that if you vote Conservative, your own children will be better-looking."
As so often you make a very good point and one that I'd missed.
However charging a capitation fee might be reasonable, you could base it on five years' average tax and NI receipts per head and regard it as a prepayment for services
The kippers propose using the Australian system, for which you get points by and large for your skills, your qualifications, the languages you speak, your age, and having a job offer or skills that match against current shortages. It doesn't mention ancestry, skin colour, culture or anything that could be considered a proxy for your racial heritage. A case in point, I (just) dont have enough points unless I get a job offer, my brown skinned Asian wife who has broadly similar qualifications to me, but is a few years younger just squeaks in.
Hoping and wishing won't do you any good just as it didn't in Rochester
#toriesreallyfiredup #kitchensink
Even if criminals can subvert those gubbins, at the cost of inconveniencing everyone else.
In a few years we'll have to work out what we do with our son wrt t'Internet. We could try to child-protect our 'net connections, but then he'll just view stuff on other people's mobiles or round friends' houses.
Or perhaps we'll just talk to him about it, even if that's embarrassing to all of us.
My guess is that if we left the EU the rest of Europe would be unlikely to kick the Brits out that are already there.
You would get ambitious graduates who didn't mind borrowing cash to get access to opportunities in the UK, plus you would get large corporates willing to pay to move staff around.
The point is that migrants would pay for their externalities.
Your claim that selectively excluding some people is sure to produce better outcomes is wrong, because you're missing the cost of enforcing the policy, and the losses when you get it wrong. Compare, "People on short business trips from the US are generally a net positive, but we could get a bigger net positive by making them take undergo extensive medical examinations to be sure they don't bring in infectious diseases or end up costing the NHS".
Of course, he may well have been paying tax on his book royalties in Spain.
From this Rotherham council report:
' The Roma population has increased from none in 2004 to an estimated 3,700 in 2012 and continues to grow through migration and natural change. '
It also mentions that these Roma migrated from Slovakia and the Czech Republic, Romanian Roma would not have been allowed to enter at that time.
http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/jsna/info/23/people/46/communities_of_interest/7
There are now media reports of up to 7,500 Roma in Rotherham.
Needless to say that just as the Roma are concentrated in a town which is noted for its deprivation, the areas within Rotherham where the Roma are concentrated are among the most deprived within the borough.
You appear to be looking at this as a system to prevent migration. I am looking at it as a system to make migration fair, cost effective and a benefit to all parties involved (taxpayer, company and migrant) rather than just to the company.
Articulately put: It is not migration but bennies! This applies to the internal and extern wally sourced population.
Her Majesty's Government should only have a duty-of-care to those under-18 and those over-75: All else should work for their daily-bread. Obviously provisos will be required - those deemed to be disabled, mad or maxing-out on their legal tax-avoidence/publicly-funded-pension-funds - but no-one should expect that the stat....
FFS Junior!
This was my fourth attempt. And still "vanilla" fecks-up...!
Can we cull some features? Posting on here is like articulating sensibly a view-point from Wodger or SoWo!!!
http://order-order.com/2015/04/05/read-guidos-sun-on-sunday-column-online-2/#_@/cIdyZ-0EQZmeVw
Yes, Cameron's secret plan is to increase childrens' IT skills.
You don't get votes by being pitied.
Now, the new line:
"There has been no preference expressed regarding the outcome of the elections"
but he is hotly not commenting on Sturgeon "didn't see Ed Miliband as PM material".
So some part of the memo clearly was true !
My suspicion now is that the whole thing was true. Sturgeon knows that the French are already embarrassed about this and cannot confirm her words this side of the election. She herself being a politician will simply flatly lie.
Now this "dark-web": Trap or treaty...?
"Which party leader do you think is most in touch with ordinary people's concerns?"
Mr Farage 28% (+5)
Mr Miliband 25% (-1)
Mr Cameron 11% (-2)
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/mms0le3g9r/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-040415-Final.pdf
Importing skilled workers has the same kind of wage deflation effect as bringing in unskilled workers, as we know from the American experience with H1-B visas. It also renders national investment in education and infrastructure unimportant because companies will simply import educated workers that can provide labor at a cheaper price.
Is Australia some paradise that isn’t having any problems with multiculturalism and immigration? Right now, the country is experiencing some trouble keeping its more vibrant citizens from running off to join ISIS.
UKIP should focus on improving opportunities and education for British workers, just like any patriotic party. That will lead to greater economic growth and social cohesion because every class and institution will have a stake in the success of everyone else. As it stands, the country is simply a pile of resources to be looted, rather than something you belong to.
Still, UKIP deserves some credit for speaking the truth on unskilled immigration. So one cheer for them, but no more.
Her Majesty's Government should only have a duty-of-care to those under-18 and those over-75: All else should work for their daily-bread. Obviously provisos will be required - those deemed to be disabled, mad or maxing-out on their legal tax-avoidence/publicly-funded-pension-funds - but no-one should expect that the stat....
FFS Junior!
This was my fourth attempt. And still "vanilla" fecks-up...!
Can we cull some features? Posting on here is like articulating sensibly a view-point from Wodger or SoWo!!!
My God, something for nothing and the "free marketer" still isn't satisfied with the bargain he's getting. Tells you all you need to know about them, really?
Would you support or oppose people coming to live in the UK being banned from receiving treatment on the NHS for a period of five years?"
Support a ban 50%, Oppose a ban 34%
But the British retirees to Spain etc are for the most part a cash cow to the local economy especially considering two other factors:
1) They buy property, so helping the local construction indsutry.
2) Few people retire to a foreign country without first having spent time there. A British retiree to Spain might have had 40+ years of Spanish holidays pumping money into the Spanish economy before moving there permanently.
For me it conjures this up:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OK28MpUepa4
The idea of Ed Miliband in lederhosen is perhaps not one to linger on for too long.
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21635041-britain-imports-young-sprightly-migrants-and-exports-creaky-old-ones-balance-ailments
I'd argue that most of the problematic immigration comes from outside the EU and mainly from specific parts of the world that are clearly identifiable and which we should be able to do something about.
Don't bother with Surbiton on immigration,he wants open borders for everyone.
Is it the retirees themselves ?
Is it the local state health / social care system ?
Is it the NHS through being recharged by the foreign health / social care system ?
I assume it varies from country to country.
They also have a positive effect on jobs in Spain as jobs are created by their emigration and none are taken by them. The "Import" (a word you previously said was unsuitable for describing humans, yet are using it here) of immigrants to work in the UK leads to lower wages for the people already at the lower end of society and more profit for the bosses who employ them
So says even the guardian
'Mass immigration increases inequality. This is the unpalatable fact the liberal left in Britain refuses to accept. Markets are imperfect instruments. But it is not necessary to subscribe to free market economic theory to believe that large increases in supply tend to drive down the price. And the price of labour is the wage.
The impact on wage rates of this increase in competition was dramatic. Christian Dustmann at University College London has provided clear evidence on the evolution of wage rates in the former West Germany. The 15th percentile of the wage distribution is the level at which only 15% of wages are lower. In West Germany, at the 15th percentile, real wages have fallen almost continuously since the mid-1990s. At the 50th percentile, where half get more and half get less, the reduction has been less sharp.
But the fall had set in by the early 2000s. At the 85th percentile, the mirror image of the 15th, real wages grew strongly, reaping the benefits of the recovery of the economy created by the increase in competitiveness.'
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/24/open-borders-fair-wages-left-mass-immigration-britain-economy
And your point is caller?
If we are quoting the Guardian:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/19/the-migration-fuelling-george-osbornes-comeback-country
You are free to support that, not my problem, I just think it's unfair on the poorest in our society and hence can't vote for a party that encourages it
We live in a world where violence -- perpetrating it and preventing it -- is the fundamental fact that social and political organization must deal with. Thus, all property rights come out of the barrel of a gun. Once you realize that, the reason why we prefer the welfare of our fellow citizens to that of non-citizens is (to get all reductionist):
They are the ones who would fight on your side.
Libertarianism is just applied autism.
:tumbleweed:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/expat-money/10834116/NHS-rejects-expats-returning-from-Spain.html
"Simply Red's Mick Hucknall once donated money to former Labour PM Tony Blair. Now, according to the Sun, he supports David Cameron and Nick Clegg.
"If I had to, I would vote for the Coalition - I've liked the Coalition," the paper quotes him saying."
This is the sad depths that the BBC has sunk and has to draw on for its focus on the election today. A reference to a bygone pop singer and his preferences. This after banning all mention of the election because it's Easter Sunday, as someone had suddenly become religious in it's ivory towers.
If not, I am not paying the license fee!
"Simply not Red"? Obvious but on the money (too tight to mention)