Britain's recent migrants are far more likely to be educated at every level of education than the domestic population. The current system works well, providing high quality migrants without too much bureaucracy.
So migrants 'do' take peoples jobs...they're simply better at them.
And you wonder why some people have a problem with that?
I wonder at some people. Britain has record levels of employment in both absolute and percentage terms.
I can scarcely think of a more misconceived point.
I'll be off to vote when I get in this evening - it will make for a pleasant diversion.
Off-topic, I'm fascinated by how many on here seem to be anti-HRC for the Presidential election. I can understand those who equate Republican with Conservative and Democrat with Labour and follow the same partisan instinct they do here but why the huge animosity toward Hillary Clinton ?
Is it because she dared to say something nice about David Miliband - I mean, it can't be as superficial as that. Are we left with a huge policy issue - I don't expect a Clinton Presidency will be much different to what we've seen and as for Trump, I await the details of his policy programme.
I hope we aren't falling into this old trap of believing someone who is successful in business has to be successful at politics. In business you can command, control and cajole. In politics you have to argue, persuade and convince and to be honest many successful businessmen aren't very good at the latter because they are used to their word being law and their edicts followed without question.
The President does not have unlimited power and if elements in the Senate and Congress want to oppose and frustrate, they can.
Britain's recent migrants are far more likely to be educated at every level of education than the domestic population. The current system works well, providing high quality migrants without too much bureaucracy.
So migrants 'do' take peoples jobs...they're simply better at them.
And you wonder why some people have a problem with that?
I wonder at some people. Britain has record levels of employment in both absolute and percentage terms.
I can scarcely think of a more misconceived point.
Just bear that comment in mind for a year or two until the next down turn and then see if it sounds quite so clever. Making policy for the short terms is what is misconceived.
Our immigration policy should be based on what we need in terms of skill set rather than country of origin.
Governments often try this. But in practice they turn out to be even worse at it than they would be at deciding what consumers need in terms of goods made in factories and sold in shops.
Our immigration policy should be based on what we need in terms of skill set rather than country of origin.
Governments often try this. But in practice they turn out to be even worse at it than they would be at deciding what consumers need in terms of goods made in factories and sold in shops.
I quite like Trump but if Cameron thinks he's stupid he should stand by it.
Let's hope this is the beginning of a trend where faux outrage and looking to be insulted on behalf of others dies out.
I think Cameron is divisive, I don't think he's stupid, I'm not going to apologise.
Wasn't it that Cameron said that Trump's *policy* re muslims enterin the country was stupid, divisive and wrong? Which it is. He might have worded it clumsily but it's obvious that was the meaning.
Even that is playing with fire, better to say nothing and let your outriders take any pot shots that seem appropriate, so that you can disown the comment if it becomes an embarrassment. With thousands of returning ISIS fighters we have an unknown future as far as islamic terrorism in the UK.
Cameron is right to stand up for the right of law-abiding British muslims to enjoy the same immigration rights as any other British citizen. We should not collude in other countries' racist policies.
You see this is where Cameron is divisive, he calls Trump stupid but his own immigration policy is equally prejudiced.
In fact I may take back what I said about him not being stupid.
"Equally" prejudiced? Really? Where does UK policy ban an entire race or religious group?
Britain's recent migrants are far more likely to be educated at every level of education than the domestic population. The current system works well, providing high quality migrants without too much bureaucracy.
So migrants 'do' take peoples jobs...they're simply better at them.
And you wonder why some people have a problem with that?
I wonder at some people. Britain has record levels of employment in both absolute and percentage terms.
I can scarcely think of a more misconceived point.
Using the economically active population as a denominator that is. I don't know how we compare with other countries when it comes to the proportion of 16 to 64 year olds who are deemed to be economically inactive, but our figures always look quite bad to me.
Britain's recent migrants are far more likely to be educated at every level of education than the domestic population. The current system works well, providing high quality migrants without too much bureaucracy.
It works well for large employers, who do not have to bother to train staff and who can keep wages low.
It does not work well for the bottom of society, or for society as whole, since all of us pay to keep our fellow citizens in the blighted lives they can aspire to.
There have been complaints about the poor quality of education of those at the bottom of society for nearly 150 years. Immigration is not the solution to their problems but nor is lower immigration.
@davidbyers26: Absolute shambles in Finchley, as polling station appears to have missed details of most voters off list. Problem apparently Barnet-wide.
Banning all Muslims from the U.S. is a stupid policy, given the huge administrative cost, but it is not racist. Islam is a voluntary belief system. It is the equivalent of banning communists, which I believe the U.S. already does.
Banning Muslims would be illegal due to that whole Constitution thing they have.
Nice try Layne, but treating people differently solely because of their race is exactly what racism is...
Banning all Muslims from the U.S. is a stupid policy, given the huge administrative cost, but it is not racist. Islam is a voluntary belief system. It is the equivalent of banning communists, which I believe the U.S. already does.
Banning Muslims would be illegal due to that whole Constitution thing they have.
Britain's recent migrants are far more likely to be educated at every level of education than the domestic population. The current system works well, providing high quality migrants without too much bureaucracy.
So migrants 'do' take peoples jobs...they're simply better at them.
And you wonder why some people have a problem with that?
I wonder at some people. Britain has record levels of employment in both absolute and percentage terms.
I can scarcely think of a more misconceived point.
The point is the one Alanbrooke makes.
You come across as somebody who doesn't give a toss for the lower echelons in society, the lesser intelligent, less mobile, less educated, who just want a job and somewhere to live.
Banning all Muslims from the U.S. is a stupid policy, given the huge administrative cost, but it is not racist. Islam is a voluntary belief system. It is the equivalent of banning communists, which I believe the U.S. already does.
Banning Muslims would be illegal due to that whole Constitution thing they have.
Nice try Layne, but treating people differently solely because of their race is exactly what racism is...
He said on the basis of religion not race, also wrong, but not racism.
Britain's recent migrants are far more likely to be educated at every level of education than the domestic population. The current system works well, providing high quality migrants without too much bureaucracy.
So migrants 'do' take peoples jobs...they're simply better at them.
And you wonder why some people have a problem with that?
I wonder at some people. Britain has record levels of employment in both absolute and percentage terms.
I can scarcely think of a more misconceived point.
Just bear that comment in mind for a year or two until the next down turn and then see if it sounds quite so clever. Making policy for the short terms is what is misconceived.
So this is what the autarks are reduced to? Hoping for downturns because the current policy seems to be working too well at present?
Britain's recent migrants are far more likely to be educated at every level of education than the domestic population. The current system works well, providing high quality migrants without too much bureaucracy.
So migrants 'do' take peoples jobs...they're simply better at them.
And you wonder why some people have a problem with that?
I wonder at some people. Britain has record levels of employment in both absolute and percentage terms.
I can scarcely think of a more misconceived point.
Just bear that comment in mind for a year or two until the next down turn and then see if it sounds quite so clever. Making policy for the short terms is what is misconceived.
So this is what the autarks are reduced to? Hoping for downturns because the current policy seems to be working too well at present?
I wish for nothing, the economic cycle happens. I didn't know you were a fan of Gordon Brown, abolished boom and bust ?
Britain's recent migrants are far more likely to be educated at every level of education than the domestic population. The current system works well, providing high quality migrants without too much bureaucracy.
So migrants 'do' take peoples jobs...they're simply better at them.
And you wonder why some people have a problem with that?
I wonder at some people. Britain has record levels of employment in both absolute and percentage terms.
I can scarcely think of a more misconceived point.
The point is the one Alanbrooke makes.
You come across as somebody who doesn't give a toss for the lower echelons in society, the lesser intelligent, less mobile, less educated, who just want a job and somewhere to live.
I quite like Trump but if Cameron thinks he's stupid he should stand by it.
Let's hope this is the beginning of a trend where faux outrage and looking to be insulted on behalf of others dies out.
I think Cameron is divisive, I don't think he's stupid, I'm not going to apologise.
Wasn't it that Cameron said that Trump's *policy* re muslims enterin the country was stupid, divisive and wrong? Which it is. He might have worded it clumsily but it's obvious that was the meaning.
Even that is playing with fire, better to say nothing and let your outriders take any pot shots that seem appropriate, so that you can disown the comment if it becomes an embarrassment. With thousands of returning ISIS fighters we have an unknown future as far as islamic terrorism in the UK.
Cameron is right to stand up for the right of law-abiding British muslims to enjoy the same immigration rights as any other British citizen. We should not collude in other countries' racist policies.
You see this is where Cameron is divisive, he calls Trump stupid but his own immigration policy is equally prejudiced.
In fact I may take back what I said about him not being stupid.
"Equally" prejudiced? Really? Where does UK policy ban an entire race or religious group?
We don'r preclude by race or religion we do it by nationality. That is equally wrong.
@davidbyers26: Absolute shambles in Finchley, as polling station appears to have missed details of most voters off list. Problem apparently Barnet-wide.
Britain's recent migrants are far more likely to be educated at every level of education than the domestic population. The current system works well, providing high quality migrants without too much bureaucracy.
So migrants 'do' take peoples jobs...they're simply better at them.
And you wonder why some people have a problem with that?
I wonder at some people. Britain has record levels of employment in both absolute and percentage terms.
I can scarcely think of a more misconceived point.
Just bear that comment in mind for a year or two until the next down turn and then see if it sounds quite so clever. Making policy for the short terms is what is misconceived.
So this is what the autarks are reduced to? Hoping for downturns because the current policy seems to be working too well at present?
I wish for nothing, the economic cycle happens. I didn't know you were a fan of Gordon Brown, abolished boom and bust ?
Record levels of employment. Not just top of the cycle, record levels.
David Dimbleby presents this week’s show from Manchester. On the panel: Conservative grandee Nigel Lawson, Daily Mail political editor Isabel Oakeshott, chief executive of Ryanair Michael O’Leary, left-wing extremist, Labour eco-loon Lisa Nandy MP (but an MP for a constituency quite near to the QT venue, for once) and poet and writer Benjamin Zephaniah.
Banning all Muslims from the U.S. is a stupid policy, given the huge administrative cost, but it is not racist. Islam is a voluntary belief system. It is the equivalent of banning communists, which I believe the U.S. already does.
Banning Muslims would be illegal due to that whole Constitution thing they have.
Nice try Layne, but treating people differently solely because of their race is exactly what racism is...
He said on the basis of religion not race, also wrong, but not racism.
It's also indirect discrimination on the grounds of race.
Britain's recent migrants are far more likely to be educated at every level of education than the domestic population. The current system works well, providing high quality migrants without too much bureaucracy.
So migrants 'do' take peoples jobs...they're simply better at them.
And you wonder why some people have a problem with that?
I wonder at some people. Britain has record levels of employment in both absolute and percentage terms.
I can scarcely think of a more misconceived point.
Just bear that comment in mind for a year or two until the next down turn and then see if it sounds quite so clever. Making policy for the short terms is what is misconceived.
So this is what the autarks are reduced to? Hoping for downturns because the current policy seems to be working too well at present?
I wish for nothing, the economic cycle happens. I didn't know you were a fan of Gordon Brown, abolished boom and bust ?
Record levels of employment. Not just top of the cycle, record levels.
When did you start working for CCHQ ? We have a record number of people in work, rather unsurprisingly because we have a record number of people.
1. Leaflets delivered through my letter box: None. 2. Posters seen down my street: None. 3. large posters seen in my area: None.
....and that's it Ladies and Gentlemen. Like a New Day newspaper, posters, leaflets are all being quietly junked,at least for this election.
........But I haven't seen a leaflet or a poster for the EuroRef either.
Yes turnout will be 30% in London, wouldn't suprise me if it was sub 30% tbh. But I guess thats because I don't live in super safe Chealsea or Bethnal Green as it makes sense for the parties to campaign in the very safe seats in elections where every vote counts because they will get more voter per contact for thier money-very efficient, which is funny because its the opposite to General elections where only a few seats matter.
Which makes me think if we had PR and "every vote matters" people who support it say that would mean campaigning in every seat but it looks like that is not happening in th emayoral elections they are staying in safe seats.
Britain's recent migrants are far more likely to be educated at every level of education than the domestic population. The current system works well, providing high quality migrants without too much bureaucracy.
It works well for large employers, who do not have to bother to train staff and who can keep wages low.
It does not work well for the bottom of society, or for society as whole, since all of us pay to keep our fellow citizens in the blighted lives they can aspire to.
There have been complaints about the poor quality of education of those at the bottom of society for nearly 150 years. Immigration is not the solution to their problems but nor is lower immigration.
Ah yes. let them eat cake.
Somewhere along the line the well off corporates like yourself have forgotten the value of human dignity when applied to your fellow citizens.
I'm actually more interested in these non entities of by-election Than my only election of the PCC. If I write 'I'm only voting as u think it a civic duty, but party politics should not determine pccs' on the ballot would any votes still be valid. Should be right?
I know noone will care what I right, but I feel the urge to do so, or else spoil the ballot.
All spoilt papers will be seen by the parties (not necessarily the candidate or agent as for PCC elections there are multiple counting places per election). Enough messages along the same line will get back.
That said, I agree that the level of engagement from the candidates to the public has been disappointingly low. You would think that with social media, they'd be able to do a lot more at little cost.
Britain's recent migrants are far more likely to be educated at every level of education than the domestic population. The current system works well, providing high quality migrants without too much bureaucracy.
So migrants 'do' take peoples jobs...they're simply better at them.
And you wonder why some people have a problem with that?
I wonder at some people. Britain has record levels of employment in both absolute and percentage terms.
I can scarcely think of a more misconceived point.
Just bear that comment in mind for a year or two until the next down turn and then see if it sounds quite so clever. Making policy for the short terms is what is misconceived.
So this is what the autarks are reduced to? Hoping for downturns because the current policy seems to be working too well at present?
I wish for nothing, the economic cycle happens. I didn't know you were a fan of Gordon Brown, abolished boom and bust ?
Record levels of employment. Not just top of the cycle, record levels.
When did you start working for CCHQ ? We have a record number of people in work, rather unsurprisingly because we have a record number of people.
Perhaps percentages work differently in the Philippines.
Britain's recent migrants are far more likely to be educated at every level of education than the domestic population. The current system works well, providing high quality migrants without too much bureaucracy.
So migrants 'do' take peoples jobs...they're simply better at them.
And you wonder why some people have a problem with that?
I wonder at some people. Britain has record levels of employment in both absolute and percentage terms.
I can scarcely think of a more misconceived point.
The point is the one Alanbrooke makes.
You come across as somebody who doesn't give a toss for the lower echelons in society, the lesser intelligent, less mobile, less educated, who just want a job and somewhere to live.
Want to put any more words in my mouth?
Immigration has compressed wages at the lower level, you want more immigration, I'm happy to stand by my assertion that you have little interest in the people negatively affected by immigration.
The Australian system works because the skills sets required are set at state level according to what the state needs, and is updated a couple of times a year or so. If you want to work as a butcher in Australia, if you have enough points from general age, education, languages etc categories then good, if you are a few points short you look for a state that is showing a shortage of butchers, send them a resume, if they like what they see they certify you as fulfilling a need, and you get to add another 3-5 points onto your application.
I'm always mystified by the faith of people who don't normally seem to believe that politicians and civil servants are wise and prudent and expert micro-managers of all aspects of people's daily lives to make accurate judgements about things like how many butchers are required in each location, and which people are appropriate to work as butchers.
What I can say from being on the sharp end of a system like that is that each career move I've made from when I moved to Japan in 1997 to my current job, doing something that the Japanese government is currently desperately trying to encourage people to do, has involved some kind of dodge to work around the spirit of the immigration rules.
David Dimbleby presents this week’s show from Manchester. On the panel: Conservative grandee Nigel Lawson, Daily Mail political editor Isabel Oakeshott, chief executive of Ryanair Michael O’Leary, left-wing extremist, Labour eco-loon Lisa Nandy MP (but an MP for a constituency quite near to the QT venue, for once) and poet and writer Benjamin Zephaniah.
Personally... with regard to Immigration..I wish we had been a lot more prejudiced...selective..than we have been over the last five decades..taking only those that can benefit the UK first...and then themselves
F1: Verstappen's odds on winning now 41 with Ladbrokes. That seems about right. Reasonably happy to have a tiny sum on hum, each way, to win at 251. Third best car, with dodgy reliability for the two faster ones.
Personally... with regard to Immigration..I wish we had been a lot more prejudiced...selective..than we have been over the last five decades..taking only those that can benefit the UK first...and then themselves
bb63..perhaps you may care to explain why letting a Rumanian in to the country..an EU citizen..and checking out The paperwork and visa etc that the chap from Pakistan presents, is prejudiced..all countries apart from Schengen areas..carry out the same checks.
An unskilled high-school drop out from Romania flashes his EU passport and walks into the UK, is able to sign-on for benefit, and use our hospitals at no charge.
No he can't. Not for three months anyway and is then subject to rigorous checks to ensure he is actively seeking a job, and has a realistic chance of getting one.
Britain's recent migrants are far more likely to be educated at every level of education than the domestic population. The current system works well, providing high quality migrants without too much bureaucracy.
It works well for large employers, who do not have to bother to train staff and who can keep wages low.
It does not work well for the bottom of society, or for society as whole, since all of us pay to keep our fellow citizens in the blighted lives they can aspire to.
There have been complaints about the poor quality of education of those at the bottom of society for nearly 150 years. Immigration is not the solution to their problems but nor is lower immigration.
Ah yes. let them eat cake.
Somewhere along the line the well off corporates like yourself have forgotten the value of human dignity when applied to your fellow citizens.
The weaker in society need help. That help is not going to be provided by voluntarily handicapping our economy. Neither Luddism nor protectionism will help.
Ultimately we need to focus on education, education, education.
Banning all Muslims from the U.S. is a stupid policy, given the huge administrative cost, but it is not racist. Islam is a voluntary belief system. It is the equivalent of banning communists, which I believe the U.S. already does.
Banning Muslims would be illegal due to that whole Constitution thing they have.
Nice try Layne, but treating people differently solely because of their race is exactly what racism is...
He said on the basis of religion not race, also wrong, but not racism.
It's also indirect discrimination on the grounds of race.
Probably not in the USA, they are much more relaxed about the idea of indirect discrimination.
In any case a President Trump would no doubt claim it was necessary on the basis of national security, having produced a Presidential Finding of "clear and present danger", it have to be challenged in the Supreme Court and would not be straightforward, especially if president Trump gets to appoint 2-3 justices in his term.
@davidbyers26: Absolute shambles in Finchley, as polling station appears to have missed details of most voters off list. Problem apparently Barnet-wide.
Not the Finchley Road conspiracy surely ....
The lizard illumanati at it again....
David Icke predicted it all .... and how we laughed ....
bb63..perhaps you may care to explain why letting a Rumanian in to the country..an EU citizen..and checking out The paperwork and visa etc that the chap from Pakistan presents, is prejudiced..all countries apart from Schengen areas..carry out the same checks.
An unskilled high-school drop out from Romania flashes his EU passport and walks into the UK, is able to sign-on for benefit, and use our hospitals at no charge.
No he can't. Not for three months anyway and is then subject to rigorous checks to ensure he is actively seeking a job, and has a realistic chance of getting one.
How long have you been living away from the UK?
If it makes you feel good to believe that is what really happens then I am happy for you.
Britain's recent migrants are far more likely to be educated at every level of education than the domestic population. The current system works well, providing high quality migrants without too much bureaucracy.
So migrants 'do' take peoples jobs...they're simply better at them.
And you wonder why some people have a problem with that?
I wonder at some people. Britain has record levels of employment in both absolute and percentage terms.
I can scarcely think of a more misconceived point.
The point is the one Alanbrooke makes.
You come across as somebody who doesn't give a toss for the lower echelons in society, the lesser intelligent, less mobile, less educated, who just want a job and somewhere to live.
Want to put any more words in my mouth?
Immigration has compressed wages at the lower level, you want more immigration, I'm happy to stand by my assertion that you have little interest in the people negatively affected by immigration.
You are advocating higher prices and, potentially, poorer products and, therefore, fewer exports. There is some reduction in earnings in some areas as a result of high immigration, undoubtedly. But it's far from certain that reducing legal flows would change that. And there would be a price to pay.
Britain's recent migrants are far more likely to be educated at every level of education than the domestic population. The current system works well, providing high quality migrants without too much bureaucracy.
It works well for large employers, who do not have to bother to train staff and who can keep wages low.
It does not work well for the bottom of society, or for society as whole, since all of us pay to keep our fellow citizens in the blighted lives they can aspire to.
There have been complaints about the poor quality of education of those at the bottom of society for nearly 150 years. Immigration is not the solution to their problems but nor is lower immigration.
Ah yes. let them eat cake.
Somewhere along the line the well off corporates like yourself have forgotten the value of human dignity when applied to your fellow citizens.
The weaker in society need help. That help is not going to be provided by voluntarily handicapping our economy. Neither Luddism nor protectionism will help.
Ultimately we need to focus on education, education, education.
If the elite of our country continue to take that sort of view what we will get is Trumpism of one sort or another, for the same sort of reasons.
Britain's recent migrants are far more likely to be educated at every level of education than the domestic population. The current system works well, providing high quality migrants without too much bureaucracy.
It works well for large employers, who do not have to bother to train staff and who can keep wages low.
It does not work well for the bottom of society, or for society as whole, since all of us pay to keep our fellow citizens in the blighted lives they can aspire to.
There have been complaints about the poor quality of education of those at the bottom of society for nearly 150 years. Immigration is not the solution to their problems but nor is lower immigration.
Ah yes. let them eat cake.
Somewhere along the line the well off corporates like yourself have forgotten the value of human dignity when applied to your fellow citizens.
The weaker in society need help. That help is not going to be provided by voluntarily handicapping our economy. Neither Luddism nor protectionism will help.
Ultimately we need to focus on education, education, education.
If the weaker in society need help then don't flood the market with cheap, unskilled labour.
That doesn't help them one jot, it might help you, but please don't pretend you give a toss for "the weaker in society".
Given the abuses in the postal and proxy voting systems, they should be limited to those with a reason: the elderly, the disabled or those out of the country.
Britain's recent migrants are far more likely to be educated at every level of education than the domestic population. The current system works well, providing high quality migrants without too much bureaucracy.
It works well for large employers, who do not have to bother to train staff and who can keep wages low.
It does not work well for the bottom of society, or for society as whole, since all of us pay to keep our fellow citizens in the blighted lives they can aspire to.
There have been complaints about the poor quality of education of those at the bottom of society for nearly 150 years. Immigration is not the solution to their problems but nor is lower immigration.
Ah yes. let them eat cake.
Somewhere along the line the well off corporates like yourself have forgotten the value of human dignity when applied to your fellow citizens.
One of the issues that has developed, as noted by the government's own (leaked) documents recently is that large number of youngsters from poorer EU countries have taken jobs that are actually well below the skill levels these people have. As a result, the less skilled native population is finding it harder to get into these jobs.
Now from an employer's perspective, the logic here is clear enough. The employer might well prefer to have a well-educated Slovak girl selling their coffees than a thicker English one who they may suspect will also be less reliable etc.
But does this make sense from a broader perspective? Clearly there is a misallocation of resources inasmuch as the Slovak should be working in a higher-skill and higher wage occupation (probably in Slovakia). This is still a low-skill, low-wage job and having someone a bit more presentable and sharp doing it doesn't change economy-wide productivity that much. Indeed, the ready inflow of such Slovaks may well help keep the job lower paid than otherwise.
Meanwhile, the native remains unemployed, so the social policy aims of the government are also frustrated (as the government document again notes).
Britain's recent migrants are far more likely to be educated at every level of education than the domestic population. The current system works well, providing high quality migrants without too much bureaucracy.
It works well for large employers, who do not have to bother to train staff and who can keep wages low.
It does not work well for the bottom of society, or for society as whole, since all of us pay to keep our fellow citizens in the blighted lives they can aspire to.
There have been complaints about the poor quality of education of those at the bottom of society for nearly 150 years. Immigration is not the solution to their problems but nor is lower immigration.
Ah yes. let them eat cake.
Somewhere along the line the well off corporates like yourself have forgotten the value of human dignity when applied to your fellow citizens.
The weaker in society need help. That help is not going to be provided by voluntarily handicapping our economy. Neither Luddism nor protectionism will help.
Ultimately we need to focus on education, education, education.
All societies handicap their economies. The UK always has but calls it different things over time. Benefits, taxes, regulation all arguably handicap the economy.
Education alone will not provide the answer. Sometimes you just have to get people in to the base jobs and allow them enough to pay a living.
I would suggest the basic issue we face is our leadership teams are all spouting mantras learned in the 70s and 80s but which the post 1989 world has made irrelevant. To date there is no consensus on how to face that challenge, bar the call of "fill your boots" by those that can.
Banning all Muslims from the U.S. is a stupid policy, given the huge administrative cost, but it is not racist. Islam is a voluntary belief system. It is the equivalent of banning communists, which I believe the U.S. already does.
Banning Muslims would be illegal due to that whole Constitution thing they have.
Banning foreign muslims wouldn't.
The US could ban all Pakistani nationals entering the country but they couldn't ban just Pakistani Muslims, it would need to be all Pakistanis, be they Christian, Hindu,uslim or whatever religion wise.
Britain's recent migrants are far more likely to be educated at every level of education than the domestic population. The current system works well, providing high quality migrants without too much bureaucracy.
So migrants 'do' take peoples jobs...they're simply better at them.
And you wonder why some people have a problem with that?
I wonder at some people. Britain has record levels of employment in both absolute and percentage terms.
I can scarcely think of a more misconceived point.
Just bear that comment in mind for a year or two until the next down turn and then see if it sounds quite so clever. Making policy for the short terms is what is misconceived.
So this is what the autarks are reduced to? Hoping for downturns because the current policy seems to be working too well at present?
I wish for nothing, the economic cycle happens. I didn't know you were a fan of Gordon Brown, abolished boom and bust ?
Record levels of employment. Not just top of the cycle, record levels.
It is the rate that matters, not the absolute level. Arguing for the latter is knowingly intellectually dishonest.
Banning all Muslims from the U.S. is a stupid policy, given the huge administrative cost, but it is not racist. Islam is a voluntary belief system. It is the equivalent of banning communists, which I believe the U.S. already does.
Banning Muslims would be illegal due to that whole Constitution thing they have.
Banning foreign muslims wouldn't.
The US could ban all Pakistani nationals entering the country but they couldn't ban just Pakistani Muslims, it would need to be all Pakistanis, be they Christian, Hindu,uslim or whatever religion wise.
Trump could designate Islam as a terrorist organisation.... That would stir things up.
Banning all Muslims from the U.S. is a stupid policy, given the huge administrative cost, but it is not racist. Islam is a voluntary belief system. It is the equivalent of banning communists, which I believe the U.S. already does.
Banning Muslims would be illegal due to that whole Constitution thing they have.
Banning foreign muslims wouldn't.
The US could ban all Pakistani nationals entering the country but they couldn't ban just Pakistani Muslims, it would need to be all Pakistanis, be they Christian, Hindu,uslim or whatever religion wise.
Given the abuses in the postal and proxy voting systems, they should be limited to those with a reason: the elderly, the disabled or those out of the country.
That doesn't really help. If you're making up a voter it's just as easy to make up an elderly voter as a young one, and if you're badgering easily confused people into letting you cast their votes for them in a way they wouldn't want then the primary target is the elderly.
Britain's recent migrants are far more likely to be educated at every level of education than the domestic population. The current system works well, providing high quality migrants without too much bureaucracy.
It works well for large employers, who do not have to bother to train staff and who can keep wages low.
It does not work well for the bottom of society, or for society as whole, since all of us pay to keep our fellow citizens in the blighted lives they can aspire to.
There have been complaints about the poor quality of education of those at the bottom of society for nearly 150 years. Immigration is not the solution to their problems but nor is lower immigration.
Better parenting is the answer, but how to achieve that I don't know.
Banning all Muslims from the U.S. is a stupid policy, given the huge administrative cost, but it is not racist. Islam is a voluntary belief system. It is the equivalent of banning communists, which I believe the U.S. already does.
Banning Muslims would be illegal due to that whole Constitution thing they have.
Nice try Layne, but treating people differently solely because of their race is exactly what racism is...
He said on the basis of religion not race, also wrong, but not racism.
It's also indirect discrimination on the grounds of race.
No, it is not. Which race would it be discriminating against? White Albanians, black Nigerians or Asian Indonesians?
bb63..perhaps you may care to explain why letting a Rumanian in to the country..an EU citizen..and checking out The paperwork and visa etc that the chap from Pakistan presents, is prejudiced..all countries apart from Schengen areas..carry out the same checks.
An unskilled high-school drop out from Romania flashes his EU passport and walks into the UK, is able to sign-on for benefit, and use our hospitals at no charge.
No he can't. Not for three months anyway and is then subject to rigorous checks to ensure he is actively seeking a job, and has a realistic chance of getting one.
How long have you been living away from the UK?
If it makes you feel good to believe that is what really happens then I am happy for you.
I think part of the problem is you have an image of the UK, divorced, literally, from reality, and you remember bits of it from when you were here, and argue based upon that memory. Like many expats (I was one myself for a while), your memories are also tinged with a rosy, idealised vision of what you think the UK was like and what you think are the dangers to that vision.
The reality is that the vast vast majority of EU immigrants don't come over here not to take our jobs, they come over here to take our jobs. If you want Pakistani baristas instead of Romanian ones, then fine, but we need immigrant baristas.
Now that, as @Alanbrooke suggests, throws up different questions as to the educational abilities of the indigenous population and which parts of the economy benefit and which don't benefit from immigration. Most studies call it about flat, in aggregate, but of course no one lives in aggregate, they live their own individual lives.
bb63..perhaps you may care to explain why letting a Rumanian in to the country..an EU citizen..and checking out The paperwork and visa etc that the chap from Pakistan presents, is prejudiced..all countries apart from Schengen areas..carry out the same checks.
An unskilled high-school drop out from Romania flashes his EU passport and walks into the UK, is able to sign-on for benefit, and use our hospitals at no charge.
No he can't. Not for three months anyway and is then subject to rigorous checks to ensure he is actively seeking a job, and has a realistic chance of getting one.
How long have you been living away from the UK?
If it makes you feel good to believe that is what really happens then I am happy for you.
I think part of the problem is you have an image of the UK, divorced, literally, from reality, and you remember bits of it from when you were here, and argue based upon that memory. Like many expats (I was one myself for a while), your memories are also tinged with a rosy, idealised vision of what you remember and what you think are the dangers to that vision.
The reality is that the vast vast majority of EU immigrants don't come over here not to take our jobs, they come over here to take our jobs. If you want Pakistani baristas instead of Romanian ones, then fine, but we need immigrant baristas.
Now that, as @Alanbrooke suggests, throws up different questions as to the educational abilities of the indigenous population and which parts of the economy benefit and which don't benefit from immigration. Most studies call it about flat, in aggregate but of course no one lives in aggregate, they live their own individual lives.
We simply do not need immigrant baristas. We have plenty of British citizens who are capable of doing those jobs.
bb63..perhaps you may care to explain why letting a Rumanian in to the country..an EU citizen..and checking out The paperwork and visa etc that the chap from Pakistan presents, is prejudiced..all countries apart from Schengen areas..carry out the same checks.
An unskilled high-school drop out from Romania flashes his EU passport and walks into the UK, is able to sign-on for benefit, and use our hospitals at no charge.
No he can't. Not for three months anyway and is then subject to rigorous checks to ensure he is actively seeking a job, and has a realistic chance of getting one.
How long have you been living away from the UK?
If it makes you feel good to believe that is what really happens then I am happy for you.
I think part of the problem is you have an image of the UK, divorced, literally, from reality, and you remember bits of it from when you were here, and argue based upon that memory. Like many expats (I was one myself for a while), your memories are also tinged with a rosy, idealised vision of what you think the UK was like and what you think are the dangers to that vision.
The reality is that the vast vast majority of EU immigrants don't come over here not to take our jobs, they come over here to take our jobs. If you want Pakistani baristas instead of Romanian ones, then fine, but we need immigrant baristas.
Now that, as @Alanbrooke suggests, throws up different questions as to the educational abilities of the indigenous population and which parts of the economy benefit and which don't benefit from immigration. Most studies call it about flat, in aggregate but of course no one lives in aggregate, they live their own individual lives.
Actually we don't, with the minimum wage rising to £9 per hour over the next few years there will be enough "natives" willing to do these jobs, except possibly in London. In fact I was served a delightful coffee on the way in by a very pretty Londoner, though it was a trendy coffee place so they probably pay her over the minimum wage anyway.
Britain's recent migrants are far more likely to be educated at every level of education than the domestic population. The current system works well, providing high quality migrants without too much bureaucracy.
It works well for large employers, who do not have to bother to train staff and who can keep wages low.
It does not work well for the bottom of society, or for society as whole, since all of us pay to keep our fellow citizens in the blighted lives they can aspire to.
There have been complaints about the poor quality of education of those at the bottom of society for nearly 150 years. Immigration is not the solution to their problems but nor is lower immigration.
Ah yes. let them eat cake.
Somewhere along the line the well off corporates like yourself have forgotten the value of human dignity when applied to your fellow citizens.
The weaker in society need help. That help is not going to be provided by voluntarily handicapping our economy. Neither Luddism nor protectionism will help.
Ultimately we need to focus on education, education, education.
Hmm I wonder how far you would push that logic.
You could very well argue that the whole social welfare structure we have is a handicap on the economy. Perhaps we should return to the pre-1914 situation of government spending being around 15% of GDP.
I have no doubt that would boost economic growth and the real incomes of people like yourself (and indeed myself) but I can foresee a few problems as well.
You're an open minded man, I have an invitation for you.
We'll visit a council estate and interview the residents, after consultation you can announce to them that you've found the solution to their problems, you're moving 100 unskilled immigrants onto the estate.
Britain's recent migrants are far more likely to be educated at every level of education than the domestic population. The current system works well, providing high quality migrants without too much bureaucracy.
It works well for large employers, who do not have to bother to train staff and who can keep wages low.
It does not work well for the bottom of society, or for society as whole, since all of us pay to keep our fellow citizens in the blighted lives they can aspire to.
There have been complaints about the poor quality of education of those at the bottom of society for nearly 150 years. Immigration is not the solution to their problems but nor is lower immigration.
Ah yes. let them eat cake.
Somewhere along the line the well off corporates like yourself have forgotten the value of human dignity when applied to your fellow citizens.
One of the issues that has developed, as noted by the government's own (leaked) documents recently is that large number of youngsters from poorer EU countries have taken jobs that are actually well below the skill levels these people have. As a result, the less skilled native population is finding it harder to get into these jobs.
Now from an employer's perspective, the logic here is clear enough. The employer might well prefer to have a well-educated Slovak girl selling their coffees than a thicker English one who they may suspect will also be less reliable etc.
But does this make sense from a broader perspective? Clearly there is a misallocation of resources inasmuch as the Slovak should be working in a higher-skill and higher wage occupation (probably in Slovakia). This is still a low-skill, low-wage job and having someone a bit more presentable and sharp doing it doesn't change economy-wide productivity that much. Indeed, the ready inflow of such Slovaks may well help keep the job lower paid than otherwise.
Meanwhile, the native remains unemployed, so the social policy aims of the government are also frustrated (as the government document again notes).
Starbucks should introduce a maximum educational achievement requirement.
(Just joking, the point you make is well-made, although surely the aim is to improve the educational achievements of the indigenous population..)
Britain's recent migrants are far more likely to be educated at every level of education than the domestic population. The current system works well, providing high quality migrants without too much bureaucracy.
It works well for large employers, who do not have to bother to train staff and who can keep wages low.
It does not work well for the bottom of society, or for society as whole, since all of us pay to keep our fellow citizens in the blighted lives they can aspire to.
There have been complaints about the poor quality of education of those at the bottom of society for nearly 150 years. Immigration is not the solution to their problems but nor is lower immigration.
Ah yes. let them eat cake.
Somewhere along the line the well off corporates like yourself have forgotten the value of human dignity when applied to your fellow citizens.
The weaker in society need help. That help is not going to be provided by voluntarily handicapping our economy. Neither Luddism nor protectionism will help.
Ultimately we need to focus on education, education, education.
All societies handicap their economies. The UK always has but calls it different things over time. Benefits, taxes, regulation all arguably handicap the economy.
Education alone will not provide the answer. Sometimes you just have to get people in to the base jobs and allow them enough to pay a living.
I would suggest the basic issue we face is our leadership teams are all spouting mantras learned in the 70s and 80s but which the post 1989 world has made irrelevant. To date there is no consensus on how to face that challenge, bar the call of "fill your boots" by those that can.
I'm not aware of any other country which has the phrase, "too clever by half", where poor education and narrow mindedness is seen as a virtue. Alistair is correct to say that education is the key.
Your point on base jobs has merit but people don't always want to do the base jobs. Fruit picking in the Marches is done by Slavs because locals don't want too and the producers are ultimately constrained by the prices that consumers will pay. Care homes are staffed by immigrants for the same reasons. Traditionally bloody wars, early deaths and emigration helped solve the problem but that's less likely now.
bb63..perhaps you may care to explain why letting a Rumanian in to the country..an EU citizen..and checking out The paperwork and visa etc that the chap from Pakistan presents, is prejudiced..all countries apart from Schengen areas..carry out the same checks.
An unskilled high-school drop out from Romania flashes his EU passport and walks into the UK, is able to sign-on for benefit, and use our hospitals at no charge.
No he can't. Not for three months anyway and is then subject to rigorous checks to ensure he is actively seeking a job, and has a realistic chance of getting one.
How long have you been living away from the UK?
If it makes you feel good to believe that is what really happens then I am happy for you.
I think part of the problem is you have an image of the UK, divorced, literally, from reality, and you remember bits of it from when you were here, and argue based upon that memory. Like many expats (I was one myself for a while), your memories are also tinged with a rosy, idealised vision of what you remember and what you think are the dangers to that vision.
The reality is that the vast vast majority of EU immigrants don't come over here not to take our jobs, they come over here to take our jobs. If you want Pakistani baristas instead of Romanian ones, then fine, but we need immigrant baristas.
Now that, as @Alanbrooke suggests, throws up different questions as to the educational abilities of the indigenous population and which parts of the economy benefit and which don't benefit from immigration. Most studies call it about flat, in aggregate but of course no one lives in aggregate, they live their own individual lives.
We simply do not need immigrant baristas. We have plenty of British citizens who are capable of doing those jobs.
ANECDOTE: A friend of a friend opened a coffee bar in Covent Garden. Of the hundred or so job applications, only two were from Brits.
Given the abuses in the postal and proxy voting systems, they should be limited to those with a reason: the elderly, the disabled or those out of the country.
That doesn't really help. If you're making up a voter it's just as easy to make up an elderly voter as a young one, and if you're badgering easily confused people into letting you cast their votes for them in a way they wouldn't want then the primary target is the elderly.
Just because it does not eliminate the problem does not mean it does not help. Part of the problem is people in certain communities doing postal votes for their whole family. You would certainly reduce how many people they could do that to. Of course, I would welcome other suggestions.
Britain's recent migrants are far more likely to be educated at every level of education than the domestic population. The current system works well, providing high quality migrants without too much bureaucracy.
So migrants 'do' take peoples jobs...they're simply better at them.
And you wonder why some people have a problem with that?
I wonder at some people. Britain has record levels of employment in both absolute and percentage terms.
I can scarcely think of a more misconceived point.
Just bear that comment in mind for a year or two until the next down turn and then see if it sounds quite so clever. Making policy for the short terms is what is misconceived.
So this is what the autarks are reduced to? Hoping for downturns because the current policy seems to be working too well at present?
I wish for nothing, the economic cycle happens. I didn't know you were a fan of Gordon Brown, abolished boom and bust ?
Record levels of employment. Not just top of the cycle, record levels.
I am tempted to suggest that those who are claiming such concern for our less able and needy are very reluctant to give Osborne the credit he deserves for this remarkable achievement. Indeed, as a generality they are more inclined to criticise him for failing to cut public spending and borrowing far more sharply, at the expense of the less able and needy.
bb63..perhaps you may care to explain why letting a Rumanian in to the country..an EU citizen..and checking out The paperwork and visa etc that the chap from Pakistan presents, is prejudiced..all countries apart from Schengen areas..carry out the same checks.
An unskilled high-school drop out from Romania flashes his EU passport and walks into the UK, is able to sign-on for benefit, and use our hospitals at no charge.
No he can't. Not for three months anyway and is then subject to rigorous checks to ensure he is actively seeking a job, and has a realistic chance of getting one.
How long have you been living away from the UK?
If it makes you feel good to believe that is what really happens then I am happy for you.
I think part of the problem is you have an image of the UK, divorced, literally, from reality, and you remember bits of it from when you were here, and argue based upon that memory. Like many expats (I was one myself for a while), your memories are also tinged with a rosy, idealised vision of what you think the UK was like and what you think are the dangers to that vision.
The reality is that the vast vast majority of EU immigrants don't come over here not to take our jobs, they come over here to take our jobs. If you want Pakistani baristas instead of Romanian ones, then fine, but we need immigrant baristas.
Now that, as @Alanbrooke suggests, throws up different questions as to the educational abilities of the indigenous population and which parts of the economy benefit and which don't benefit from immigration. Most studies call it about flat, in aggregate but of course no one lives in aggregate, they live their own individual lives.
Actually we don't, with the minimum wage rising to £9 per hour over the next few years there will be enough "natives" willing to do these jobs, except possibly in London. In fact I was served a delightful coffee on the way in by a very pretty Londoner, though it was a trendy coffee place so they probably pay her over the minimum wage anyway.
Outside London it seems that most baristas (ok we're talking Costa and the Co-Op in-house here) are either students or dinner ladies. The Romanians seem to want to turn their hand to hand car washes.
Banning all Muslims from the U.S. is a stupid policy, given the huge administrative cost, but it is not racist. Islam is a voluntary belief system. It is the equivalent of banning communists, which I believe the U.S. already does.
Banning Muslims would be illegal due to that whole Constitution thing they have.
Nice try Layne, but treating people differently solely because of their race is exactly what racism is...
He said on the basis of religion not race, also wrong, but not racism.
It's also indirect discrimination on the grounds of race.
No, it is not. Which race would it be discriminating against? White Albanians, black Nigerians or Asian Indonesians?
Banning all Muslims from the U.S. is a stupid policy, given the huge administrative cost, but it is not racist. Islam is a voluntary belief system. It is the equivalent of banning communists, which I believe the U.S. already does.
Banning Muslims would be illegal due to that whole Constitution thing they have.
Banning foreign muslims wouldn't.
The US could ban all Pakistani nationals entering the country but they couldn't ban just Pakistani Muslims, it would need to be all Pakistanis, be they Christian, Hindu,uslim or whatever religion wise.
Why? (Constitutionally, not morally).
Indeed, I remember asking this question before, it would be possible to ban people on religious grounds in extremis, but whether it would be morally correct is a grey area. How he would ban American Muslims from re-entering the country is not something I understand, it's probably impossible as they have constitutional protections and it would morally reprehensible to ban US citizens from re-entering the US unless there was a proven link to terrorism in which case they could be picked up at the border and taken to prison to be tried.
Alex Salmond has suggested the appointment of Boris Johnson as prime minister could be the "material change of circumstances" that triggers another independence referendum.
bb63..perhaps you may care to explain why letting a Rumanian in to the country..an EU citizen..and checking out The paperwork and visa etc that the chap from Pakistan presents, is prejudiced..all countries apart from Schengen areas..carry out the same checks.
An unskilled high-school drop out from Romania flashes his EU passport and walks into the UK, is able to sign-on for benefit, and use our hospitals at no charge.
No he can't. Not for three months anyway and is then subject to rigorous checks to ensure he is actively seeking a job, and has a realistic chance of getting one.
How long have you been living away from the UK?
If it makes you feel good to believe that is what really happens then I am happy for you.
I think part of the problem is you have an image of the UK, divorced, literally, from reality, and you remember bits of it from when you were here, and argue based upon that memory. Like many expats (I was one myself for a while), your memories are also tinged with a rosy, idealised vision of what you remember and what you think are the dangers to that vision.
The reality is that the vast vast majority of EU immigrants don't come over here not to take our jobs, they come over here to take our jobs. If you want Pakistani baristas instead of Romanian ones, then fine, but we need immigrant baristas.
Now that, as @Alanbrooke suggests, throws up different questions as to the educational abilities of the indigenous population and which parts of the economy benefit and which don't benefit from immigration. Most studies call it about flat, in aggregate but of course no one lives in aggregate, they live their own individual lives.
We simply do not need immigrant baristas. We have plenty of British citizens who are capable of doing those jobs.
ANECDOTE: A friend of a friend opened a coffee bar in Covent Garden. Of the hundred or so job applications, only two were from Brits.
That is because wages and conditions have been depressed by immigrant labour. A less flooded low skill market would allow better wages and conditions and encourage more Brits to apply.
bb63..perhaps you may care to explain why letting a Rumanian in to the country..an EU citizen..and checking out The paperwork and visa etc that the chap from Pakistan presents, is prejudiced..all countries apart from Schengen areas..carry out the same checks.
An unskilled high-school drop out from Romania flashes his EU passport and walks into the UK, is able to sign-on for benefit, and use our hospitals at no charge.
No he can't. Not for three months anyway and is then subject to rigorous checks to ensure he is actively seeking a job, and has a realistic chance of getting one.
How long have you been living away from the UK?
If it makes you feel good to believe that is what really happens then I am happy for you.
I think part of the problem is you have an image of the UK, divorced, literally, from reality, and you remember bits of it from when you were here, and argue based upon that memory. Like many expats (I was one myself for a while), your memories are also tinged with a rosy, idealised vision of what you remember and what you think are the dangers to that vision.
The reality is that the vast vast majority of EU immigrants don't come over here not to take our jobs, they come over here to take our jobs. If you want Pakistani baristas instead of Romanian ones, then fine, but we need immigrant baristas.
Now that, as @Alanbrooke suggests, throws up different questions as to the educational abilities of the indigenous population and which parts of the economy benefit and which don't benefit from immigration. Most studies call it about flat, in aggregate but of course no one lives in aggregate, they live their own individual lives.
We simply do not need immigrant baristas. We have plenty of British citizens who are capable of doing those jobs.
ANECDOTE: A friend of a friend opened a coffee bar in Covent Garden. Of the hundred or so job applications, only two were from Brits.
That is because wages and conditions have been depressed by immigrant labour. A less flooded low skill market would allow better wages and conditions and encourage more Brits to apply.
And a more expensive cup of coffee, which would mean, ceteris paribus, less coffee sold, less profit for the coffee shop, and potential market exit.
My polling station was going like a fair this morning. But then the village usually does. Our regional vote form was about 18 inches long. We should have a competition as to who gets the longest. Presumably in the London boroughs but this was a good effort.
bb63..perhaps you may care to explain why letting a Rumanian in to the country..an EU citizen..and checking out The paperwork and visa etc that the chap from Pakistan presents, is prejudiced..all countries apart from Schengen areas..carry out the same checks.
An unskilled high-school drop out from Romania flashes his EU passport and walks into the UK, is able to sign-on for benefit, and use our hospitals at no charge.
No he can't. Not for three months anyway and is then subject to rigorous checks to ensure he is actively seeking a job, and has a realistic chance of getting one.
How long have you been living away from the UK?
If it makes you feel good to believe that is what really happens then I am happy for you.
I think part of the problem is you have an image of the UK, divorced, literally, from reality, and you remember bits of it from when you were here, and argue based upon that memory. Like many expats (I was one myself for a while), your memories are also tinged with a rosy, idealised vision of what you remember and what you think are the dangers to that vision.
The reality is that the vast vast majority of EU immigrants don't come over here not to take our jobs, they come over here to take our jobs. If you want Pakistani baristas instead of Romanian ones, then fine, but we need immigrant baristas.
Now that, as @Alanbrooke suggests, throws up different questions as to the educational abilities of the indigenous population and which parts of the economy benefit and which don't benefit from immigration. Most studies call it about flat, in aggregate but of course no one lives in aggregate, they live their own individual lives.
We simply do not need immigrant baristas. We have plenty of British citizens who are capable of doing those jobs.
ANECDOTE: A friend of a friend opened a coffee bar in Covent Garden. Of the hundred or so job applications, only two were from Brits.
Although funnily enough the Benugo's at Waterloo has had two British baristas start in the last two months.
@TelePolitics: #PollingDay Speculation that Barnet may have to re-run the election as voters are left unable to cast their ballots https://t.co/K93fyrqrPc
You're an open minded man, I have an invitation for you.
We'll visit a council estate and interview the residents, after consultation you can announce to them that you've found the solution to their problems, you're moving 100 unskilled immigrants onto the estate.
You up for that?
I'm an open minded man, I have a suggestion for you.
Why don't you stop trying to suggest that I am arguing things that I am not, making nonsense points that I have not begun to suggest and instead try to engage with the points that I actually am making?
Britain's recent migrants are far more likely to be educated at every level of education than the domestic population. The current system works well, providing high quality migrants without too much bureaucracy.
It works well for large employers, who do not have to bother to train staff and who can keep wages low.
It does not work well for the bottom aspire to.
There have been complaints about the poor quality of education of those at the bottom of society for nearly 150 years. Immigration is not the solution to their problems but nor is lower immigration.
Ah yes. let them eat cake.
Somewhere along the line the well off corporates like yourself have forgotten the value of human dignity when applied to your fellow citizens.
The weaker in society need help. That help is not going to be provided by voluntarily handicapping our economy. Neither Luddism nor protectionism will help.
Ultimately we need to focus on education, education, education.
All societies handicap their economies. The UK always has but calls it different things over time. Benefits, taxes, regulation all are call of "fill your boots" by those that can.
I'm not aware of any other country which has the phrase, "too clever by half", where poor education and narrow mindedness is seen as a virtue. Alistair is correct to say that education is the key.
Your point on base jobs has merit but people don't always want to do the base jobs. Fruit picking in the Marches is done by Slavs because locals don't want too and the producers are ultimately constrained by the prices that consumers will pay. Care homes are staffed by immigrants for the same reasons. Traditionally bloody wars, early deaths and emigration helped solve the problem but that's less likely now.
I'm not aware of any other country which has the phrase, "too clever by half"
Just about every European country I have worked in has a similar phrase. If you want to see how bad it can get try negotiating with the CGT in France. We're fairly enlightened by comparison. Or try getting East Europeans who grew up under communism to admire progress.
The issue on base jobs is to remove the option of choice. Work has its own merits and once started on a path that breaks the option of sitting at home people generally move on.
Britain's recent migrants are far more likely to be educated at every level of education than the domestic population. The current system works well, providing high quality migrants without too much bureaucracy.
It works well for large employers, who do not have to bother to train staff and who can keep wages low.
It does not work well for the bottom of society, or for society as whole, since all of us pay to keep our fellow citizens in the blighted lives they can aspire to.
There have been complaints about the poor quality of education of those at the bottom of society for nearly 150 years. Immigration is not the solution to their problems but nor is lower immigration.
Ah yes. let them eat cake.
Somewhere along the line the well off corporates like yourself have forgotten the value of human dignity when applied to your fellow citizens.
The weaker in society need help. That help is not going to be provided by voluntarily handicapping our economy. Neither Luddism nor protectionism will help.
Ultimately we need to focus on education, education, education.
All societies handicap their economies. The UK always has but calls it different things over time. Benefits, taxes, regulation all arguably handicap the economy.
Education alone will not provide the answer. Sometimes you just have to get people in to the base jobs and allow them enough to pay a living.
I would suggest the basic issue we face is our leadership teams are all spouting mantras learned in the 70s and 80s but which the post 1989 world has made irrelevant. To date there is no consensus on how to face that challenge, bar the call of "fill your boots" by those that can.
I'm not aware of any other country which has the phrase, "too clever by half", where poor education and narrow mindedness is seen as a virtue. Alistair is correct to say that education is the key.
Your point on base jobs has merit but people don't always want to do the base jobs. Fruit picking in the Marches is done by Slavs because locals don't want too and the producers are ultimately constrained by the prices that consumers will pay. Care homes are staffed by immigrants for the same reasons. Traditionally bloody wars, early deaths and emigration helped solve the problem but that's less likely now.
A friend of mine says we need a good war, to cull the population and give people some perspective.
It's not my way of doing things but its been effective in the past.
bb63 In my wide experience of council estates... having been brought up on one and where most of my extended family live..is that the vast majority of the tenants would not give a damn..as it would not impinge on their benefits.. ..
I'm not aware of any other country which has the phrase, "too clever by half", where poor education and narrow mindedness is seen as a virtue. Alistair is correct to say that education is the key.
Your point on base jobs has merit but people don't always want to do the base jobs. Fruit picking in the Marches is done by Slavs because locals don't want too and the producers are ultimately constrained by the prices that consumers will pay. Care homes are staffed by immigrants for the same reasons. Traditionally bloody wars, early deaths and emigration helped solve the problem but that's less likely now.
To be honest if an industry can only survive by paying artificially low wages it should probably shut down or reorganise itself drastically.
Keeping it going is a misallocation of resources, especially if the low wages it is paying are being topped-up extensively by in-work benefits. This way does not lead to the high productivity, high wage society we want to see. In fact it's really just another form of protectionism.
bb63..perhaps you may care to explain why letting a Rumanian in to the country..an EU citizen..and checking out The paperwork and visa etc that the chap from Pakistan presents, is prejudiced..all countries apart from Schengen areas..carry out the same checks.
An unskilled high-school drop out from Romania flashes his EU passport and walks into the UK, is able to sign-on for benefit, and use our hospitals at no charge.
No he can't. Not for three months anyway and is then subject to rigorous checks to ensure he is actively seeking a job, and has a realistic chance of getting one.
How long have you been living away from the UK?
If it makes you feel good to believe that is what really happens then I am happy for you.
I think part of the problem is you have an image of the UK, divorced, literally, from reality, and you remember bits of it from when you were here, and argue based upon that memory. Like many expats (I was one myself for a while), your memories are also tinged with a rosy, idealised vision of what you remember and what you think are the dangers to that vision.
The reality is that the vast vast majority of EU immigrants don't come over here not to take our jobs, they come over here to take our jobs. If you want Pakistani baristas instead of Romanian ones, then fine, but we need immigrant baristas.
Now that, as @Alanbrooke suggests, throws up different questions as to the educational abilities of the indigenous population and which parts of the economy benefit and which don't benefit from immigration. Most studies call it about flat, in aggregate but of course no one lives in aggregate, they live their own individual lives.
We simply do not need immigrant baristas. We have plenty of British citizens who are capable of doing those jobs.
ANECDOTE: A friend of a friend opened a coffee bar in Covent Garden. Of the hundred or so job applications, only two were from Brits.
That is because wages and conditions have been depressed by immigrant labour. A less flooded low skill market would allow better wages and conditions and encourage more Brits to apply.
Brits didn't do this kind of work 40 years ago. They are far better clued up on which benefit to get instead.
You're an open minded man, I have an invitation for you.
We'll visit a council estate and interview the residents, after consultation you can announce to them that you've found the solution to their problems, you're moving 100 unskilled immigrants onto the estate.
You up for that?
I'm an open minded man, I have a suggestion for you.
Why don't you stop trying to suggest that I am arguing things that I am not, making nonsense points that I have not begun to suggest and instead try to engage with the points that I actually am making?
Tell you what, I'll do all those imaginary things when you stop telling people what is best for them - deal?
You have zero concept of life on a council estate, telling ordinary people that immigration is good for them is patronising and wrong.
And a more expensive cup of coffee, which would mean, ceteris paribus, less coffee sold, less profit for the coffee shop, and potential market exit.
No, usually just a period of higher inflation as prices rise to meet the wage requirements. Part of why Osborne is pushing through the big rises in the minimum wage is because inflation is so low at the moment, he can afford to do it and if businesses raise their prices we still wouldn't go over the inflation target.
You are using the arguments that were used against introducing the minimum wage, in the end the higher wages led to increased economic growth and job creation, I don't see why the same wouldn't be true now. It is a proven fact that people lower down the income ladder spend more of their money than those higher up who are more likely to invest it in property or shares. Increasing the wages of the lower paid in times of deflation or stagflation is economically viable, and I'm glad that the chancellor has had one good idea in all of these years.
Banning all Muslims from the U.S. is a stupid policy, given the huge administrative cost, but it is not racist. Islam is a voluntary belief system. It is the equivalent of banning communists, which I believe the U.S. already does.
Banning Muslims would be illegal due to that whole Constitution thing they have.
Banning foreign muslims wouldn't.
The US could ban all Pakistani nationals entering the country but they couldn't ban just Pakistani Muslims, it would need to be all Pakistanis, be they Christian, Hindu,uslim or whatever religion wise.
Why? (Constitutionally, not morally).
The establishment clause, spexifically the free exercise of religion. Any such ban would fail the common sense test in front of the Supremes.
Say a Christian immigrant comes to America and one hour after entering converts to Isalm. That person couldn't be thrown out as the free exercise clause would prohibit that action.
No restriction on their religious expression can be placed on them, so how could a religious restriction be placed on their entry?
You'd be looking at a 7-2 decision to overturn at best.
Britain's recent migrants are far more likely to be educated at every level of education than the domestic population. The current system works well, providing high quality migrants without too much bureaucracy.
It works well for large employers, who do not have to bother to train staff and who can keep wages low.
It does not work well for the bottom of society, or for society as whole, since all of us pay to keep our fellow citizens in the blighted lives they can aspire to.
There have been complaints about the poor quality of education of those at the bottom of society for nearly 150 years. Immigration is not the solution to their problems but nor is lower immigration.
Ah yes. let them eat cake.
Somewhere along the line the well off corporates like yourself have forgotten the value of human dignity when applied to your fellow citizens.
The weaker in society need help. That help is not going to be provided by voluntarily handicapping our economy. Neither Luddism nor protectionism will help.
Ultimately we need to focus on education, education, education.
All societies handicap their economies. The UK always has but calls it different things over time. Benefits, taxes, regulation all arguably handicap the economy.
Education alone will not provide the answer. Sometimes you just have to get people in to the base jobs and allow them enough to pay a living.
I would suggest the basic issue we face is our leadership teams are all spouting mantras learned in the 70s and 80s but which the post 1989 world has made irrelevant. To date there is no consensus on how to face that challenge, bar the call of "fill your boots" by those that can.
I'm not aware of any other country which has the phrase, "too clever by half", where poor education and narrow mindedness is seen as a virtue. Alistair is correct to say that education is the key.
Your point on base jobs has merit but people don't always want to do the base jobs. Fruit picking in the Marches is done by Slavs because locals don't want too and the producers are ultimately constrained by the prices that consumers will pay. Care homes are staffed by immigrants for the same reasons. Traditionally bloody wars, early deaths and emigration helped solve the problem but that's less likely now.
A friend of mine says we need a good war, to cull the population and give people some perspective.
It's not my way of doing things but its been effective in the past.
Will your friend be setting an example by killing himself?
And a more expensive cup of coffee, which would mean, ceteris paribus, less coffee sold, less profit for the coffee shop, and potential market exit.
-------------
And resources put into something more productive.
Presumably one of the reasons we have this boom in coffee shops and the like is precisely because artificially cheap labour allows you to turn a decent profit at it. But let's not kid ourselves - these are low productivity establishments and are not going to make use an economic powerhouse. Indeed, a smaller coffee bar sector is probably a good thing, in the round.
All societies handicap their economies. The UK always has but calls it different things over time. Benefits, taxes, regulation all are call of "fill your boots" by those that can.
I'm not aware of any other country which has the phrase, "too clever by half", where poor education and narrow mindedness is seen as a virtue. Alistair is correct to say that education is the key.
Your point on base jobs has merit but people don't always want to do the base jobs. Fruit picking in the Marches is done by Slavs because locals don't want too and the producers are ultimately constrained by the prices that consumers will pay. Care homes are staffed by immigrants for the same reasons. Traditionally bloody wars, early deaths and emigration helped solve the problem but that's less likely now.
I'm not aware of any other country which has the phrase, "too clever by half"
Just about every European country I have worked in has a similar phrase. If you want to see how bad it can get try negotiating with the CGT in France. We're fairly enlightened by comparison. Or try getting East Europeans who grew up under communism to admire progress.
The issue on base jobs is to remove the option of choice. Work has its own merits and once started on a path that breaks the option of sitting at home people generally move on.
I remember Nigel Lawson, as Chancellor, explaining that unemployment was a moral issue, not an economic one. We could (then) afford to pay benefits but the wasted and futile lives were a disgrace. Some work can be tedious and boring but there is still a dignity to labour (only with a small L of course) and earning your own living that pays the recipient and society in so many ways.
We also have to accept that a significant percentage of the population are not capable of benefitting hugely from more and more education. We need to find ways to provide them with meaningful work and relevant training. It will do so much more than some pointless college course with a discredited qualification at the end of it.
And a more expensive cup of coffee, which would mean, ceteris paribus, less coffee sold, less profit for the coffee shop, and potential market exit.
No, usually just a period of higher inflation as prices rise to meet the wage requirements. Part of why Osborne is pushing through the big rises in the minimum wage is because inflation is so low at the moment, he can afford to do it and if businesses raise their prices we still wouldn't go over the inflation target.
You are using the arguments that were used against introducing the minimum wage, in the end the higher wages led to increased economic growth and job creation, I don't see why the same wouldn't be true now. It is a proven fact that people lower down the income ladder spend more of their money than those higher up who are more likely to invest it in property or shares. Increasing the wages of the lower paid in times of deflation or stagflation is economically viable, and I'm glad that the chancellor has had one good idea in all of these years.
Yes. Except, you are forgetting household debt. People continue to spend because they are leveraged, not because their MPC increased via their receipt of the minimum wage.
You're an open minded man, I have an invitation for you.
We'll visit a council estate and interview the residents, after consultation you can announce to them that you've found the solution to their problems, you're moving 100 unskilled immigrants onto the estate.
You up for that?
I'm an open minded man, I have a suggestion for you.
Why don't you stop trying to suggest that I am arguing things that I am not, making nonsense points that I have not begun to suggest and instead try to engage with the points that I actually am making?
Tell you what, I'll do all those imaginary things when you stop telling people what is best for them - deal?
You have zero concept of life on a council estate, telling ordinary people that immigration is good for them is patronising and wrong.
I'm entitled to express my views on what is best for this country, same as you. The difference between my views and your views is that you're willing to engage in economic vandalism in a spurious attempt to recreate a vision of a Britain in the past that never really existed.
So fortunately I shall carry on expressing my views and will stoically endure hearing you spout your ill-informed nonsense day in day out.
Comments
I can scarcely think of a more misconceived point.
I'll be off to vote when I get in this evening - it will make for a pleasant diversion.
Off-topic, I'm fascinated by how many on here seem to be anti-HRC for the Presidential election. I can understand those who equate Republican with Conservative and Democrat with Labour and follow the same partisan instinct they do here but why the huge animosity toward Hillary Clinton ?
Is it because she dared to say something nice about David Miliband - I mean, it can't be as superficial as that. Are we left with a huge policy issue - I don't expect a Clinton Presidency will be much different to what we've seen and as for Trump, I await the details of his policy programme.
I hope we aren't falling into this old trap of believing someone who is successful in business has to be successful at politics. In business you can command, control and cajole. In politics you have to argue, persuade and convince and to be honest many successful businessmen aren't very good at the latter because they are used to their word being law and their edicts followed without question.
The President does not have unlimited power and if elements in the Senate and Congress want to oppose and frustrate, they can.
You come across as somebody who doesn't give a toss for the lower echelons in society, the lesser intelligent, less mobile, less educated, who just want a job and somewhere to live.
Mr. Meeks, neither that, nor a human pyramid scheme, is a wise approach.
David Dimbleby presents this week’s show from Manchester. On the panel: Conservative grandee Nigel Lawson, Daily Mail political editor Isabel Oakeshott, chief executive of Ryanair Michael O’Leary, left-wing extremist, Labour eco-loon Lisa Nandy MP (but an MP for a constituency quite near to the QT venue, for once) and poet and writer Benjamin Zephaniah.
Which makes me think if we had PR and "every vote matters" people who support it say that would mean campaigning in every seat but it looks like that is not happening in th emayoral elections they are staying in safe seats.
Somewhere along the line the well off corporates like yourself have forgotten the value of human dignity when applied to your fellow citizens.
That said, I agree that the level of engagement from the candidates to the public has been disappointingly low. You would think that with social media, they'd be able to do a lot more at little cost.
What I can say from being on the sharp end of a system like that is that each career move I've made from when I moved to Japan in 1997 to my current job, doing something that the Japanese government is currently desperately trying to encourage people to do, has involved some kind of dodge to work around the spirit of the immigration rules.
Calls flooding in to @thetimes about shambles in Barnet borough. Thousands can't vote. Surely, they'll have to shut the polling stations.
How long have you been living away from the UK?
Ultimately we need to focus on education, education, education.
In any case a President Trump would no doubt claim it was necessary on the basis of national security, having produced a Presidential Finding of "clear and present danger", it have to be challenged in the Supreme Court and would not be straightforward, especially if president Trump gets to appoint 2-3 justices in his term.
I can imagine the distribution of postal votes in Tower Hamlets will be laughable.
If the weaker in society need help then don't flood the market with cheap, unskilled labour.
That doesn't help them one jot, it might help you, but please don't pretend you give a toss for "the weaker in society".
For first time ever, the Sun reviews Ibsen. "Downton star Hugh Bonneville plays hero in play about press freedom" https://t.co/sE0CwPTmgm
Now from an employer's perspective, the logic here is clear enough. The employer might well prefer to have a well-educated Slovak girl selling their coffees than a thicker English one who they may suspect will also be less reliable etc.
But does this make sense from a broader perspective? Clearly there is a misallocation of resources inasmuch as the Slovak should be working in a higher-skill and higher wage occupation (probably in Slovakia). This is still a low-skill, low-wage job and having someone a bit more presentable and sharp doing it doesn't change economy-wide productivity that much. Indeed, the ready inflow of such Slovaks may well help keep the job lower paid than otherwise.
Meanwhile, the native remains unemployed, so the social policy aims of the government are also frustrated (as the government document again notes).
Education alone will not provide the answer. Sometimes you just have to get people in to the base jobs and allow them enough to pay a living.
I would suggest the basic issue we face is our leadership teams are all spouting mantras learned in the 70s and 80s but which the post 1989 world has made irrelevant. To date there is no consensus on how to face that challenge, bar the call of "fill your boots" by those that can.
The reality is that the vast vast majority of EU immigrants don't come over here not to take our jobs, they come over here to take our jobs. If you want Pakistani baristas instead of Romanian ones, then fine, but we need immigrant baristas.
Now that, as @Alanbrooke suggests, throws up different questions as to the educational abilities of the indigenous population and which parts of the economy benefit and which don't benefit from immigration. Most studies call it about flat, in aggregate, but of course no one lives in aggregate, they live their own individual lives.
You could very well argue that the whole social welfare structure we have is a handicap on the economy. Perhaps we should return to the pre-1914 situation of government spending being around 15% of GDP.
I have no doubt that would boost economic growth and the real incomes of people like yourself (and indeed myself) but I can foresee a few problems as well.
You're an open minded man, I have an invitation for you.
We'll visit a council estate and interview the residents, after consultation you can announce to them that you've found the solution to their problems, you're moving 100 unskilled immigrants onto the estate.
You up for that?
(Just joking, the point you make is well-made, although surely the aim is to improve the educational achievements of the indigenous population..)
Your point on base jobs has merit but people don't always want to do the base jobs. Fruit picking in the Marches is done by Slavs because locals don't want too and the producers are ultimately constrained by the prices that consumers will pay. Care homes are staffed by immigrants for the same reasons. Traditionally bloody wars, early deaths and emigration helped solve the problem but that's less likely now.
But maybe that would be overly picky.
Edit: British students and dinner ladies..
Just like the EU, you vote again until we get the result we want.
But how do you know who 'you' voted for? Isn't it a secret ballot?
They are the only ones mind.
Why don't you stop trying to suggest that I am arguing things that I am not, making nonsense points that I have not begun to suggest and instead try to engage with the points that I actually am making?
Just about every European country I have worked in has a similar phrase. If you want to see how bad it can get try negotiating with the CGT in France. We're fairly enlightened by comparison. Or try getting East Europeans who grew up under communism to admire progress.
The issue on base jobs is to remove the option of choice. Work has its own merits and once started on a path that breaks the option of sitting at home people generally move on.
It's not my way of doing things but its been effective in the past.
I'm not aware of any other country which has the phrase, "too clever by half", where poor education and narrow mindedness is seen as a virtue. Alistair is correct to say that education is the key.
Your point on base jobs has merit but people don't always want to do the base jobs. Fruit picking in the Marches is done by Slavs because locals don't want too and the producers are ultimately constrained by the prices that consumers will pay. Care homes are staffed by immigrants for the same reasons. Traditionally bloody wars, early deaths and emigration helped solve the problem but that's less likely now.
-------------------------------------------------------------
To be honest if an industry can only survive by paying artificially low wages it should probably shut down or reorganise itself drastically.
Keeping it going is a misallocation of resources, especially if the low wages it is paying are being topped-up extensively by in-work benefits. This way does not lead to the high productivity, high wage society we want to see. In fact it's really just another form of protectionism.
You have zero concept of life on a council estate, telling ordinary people that immigration is good for them is patronising and wrong.
You are using the arguments that were used against introducing the minimum wage, in the end the higher wages led to increased economic growth and job creation, I don't see why the same wouldn't be true now. It is a proven fact that people lower down the income ladder spend more of their money than those higher up who are more likely to invest it in property or shares. Increasing the wages of the lower paid in times of deflation or stagflation is economically viable, and I'm glad that the chancellor has had one good idea in all of these years.
Say a Christian immigrant comes to America and one hour after entering converts to Isalm. That person couldn't be thrown out as the free exercise clause would prohibit that action.
No restriction on their religious expression can be placed on them, so how could a religious restriction be placed on their entry?
You'd be looking at a 7-2 decision to overturn at best.
And a more expensive cup of coffee, which would mean, ceteris paribus, less coffee sold, less profit for the coffee shop, and potential market exit.
-------------
And resources put into something more productive.
Presumably one of the reasons we have this boom in coffee shops and the like is precisely because artificially cheap labour allows you to turn a decent profit at it. But let's not kid ourselves - these are low productivity establishments and are not going to make use an economic powerhouse. Indeed, a smaller coffee bar sector is probably a good thing, in the round.
Some work can be tedious and boring but there is still a dignity to labour (only with a small L of course) and earning your own living that pays the recipient and society in so many ways.
We also have to accept that a significant percentage of the population are not capable of benefitting hugely from more and more education. We need to find ways to provide them with meaningful work and relevant training. It will do so much more than some pointless college course with a discredited qualification at the end of it.
So fortunately I shall carry on expressing my views and will stoically endure hearing you spout your ill-informed nonsense day in day out.