FPT: An astonishing level of ignorance on here about our immigration system. Non-EU migrants have already been subject to a points based system and levies for using the NHS for the past 5 years.
so lets put e.u migrants under the same system and get rid of our racist immigration system we have now.
Quite. How Remainers can defend this perplexes me. Bring in the smart, ambitious and articulate from wherever - not just 27 others who are almost all Caucasian. It's a fatal flaw in their argument.
FPT: An astonishing level of ignorance on here about our immigration system. Non-EU migrants have already been subject to a points based system and levies for using the NHS for the past 5 years.
so lets put e.u migrants under the same system and get rid of our racist immigration system we have now.
Quite. How Remainers can defend this perplexes me. Bring in the smart, ambitious and articulate from wherever - not just 27 others who are almost all Caucasian. It's a fatal flaw in their argument.
All immigration systems are racist to a grater or lesser extent. We confer rights on the citizens of the Isle of Man, for instance, to live and work in the UK.
Are we considering getting rid of that, as well as Brexit? If not, you can't play the 'racist' card, as the system is just as racist - it's just that the number of countries with whom we have a reciprocal work relationship is somewhat smaller.
Very good thread indeed. A timely dog whistle to those who read PB that Brexit wont be painless. Though Blackburn and the 3 Platos might relish the thought of cold muffins and donkey rides on Eastborne beach without a foreigner in sight many others will see it differently.
You're pointing us towards a very scary place which like all the best dog whistles wont be audible to many.
If the thought of Boris in No 10 just looks like a swap of Tories with contrasting hairstyles think of him on a hot line with Donald Trump.
If you're still not hearing it you're a UKIPer and this isn't meant for you
For those like me who have just had a coffee at their local Italian bar and don't want it to be replaced with a whelk stall leave your computers and start persuading those you know NOW.
I've been thinking about an interim position on tariffs before trade deals are in place. Could we adopt a position to put in place mirror tariffs by default - I.e. We set tariffs at the same rate others set on us. If they set 0%, we set 0%. If they go punitive, so do we. The incentive therefore is for everyone to go low. Thoughts?
Crikey, that would mean companies working in the UK would actually have to invest in training people. They won't like that.
A bit of Bennery which I quite liked and got serious consideration under Blair before rejection was a compulsory training levy, the proceeds of which would be available to any company (or college) operating an approved training scheme, which they could open to outside trainees. So someone like Honda could make a profit from having a good engineering training scheme, while XYZ Engineering, which coudn't be bothered to give their staff any additional training could simply pay the levy and have Honda train them instead.
Lots of practical difficulties (which is why Blair rejected it, apart from his wariness of the state interfering) - need for approval, availability of local schemes, etc. But the idea that you have to give your staff training but can choose whether to do it yourself seemed essentially sound, as opposed to the current situation where companies who don't train poach staff from companies that do.
I've been thinking about an interim position on tariffs before trade deals are in place. Could we adopt a position to put in place mirror tariffs by default - I.e. We set tariffs at the same rate others set on us. If they set 0%, we set 0%. If they go punitive, so do we. The incentive therefore is for everyone to go low. Thoughts?
Existing terms are in place until new deals are signed. Or WTO by default if no deal is in place.
Very good thread indeed. A timely dog whistle to those who read PB that Brexit wont be painless. Though Blackburn and the 3 Platos might relish the thought of cold muffins and donkey rides on Eastborne beach without a foreigner in sight many others will see it differently.
You're pointing us towards a very scary place which like all the best dog whistles wont be audible to many.
If the thought of Boris in No 10 just looks like a swap of Tories with contrasting hairstyles think of him on a hot line with Donald Trump.
If you're still not hearing it you're a UKIPer and this isn't meant for you
For those like me who have just had a coffee at their local Italian bar and don't want it to be replaced with a whelk stall leave your computers and start persuading those you know NOW.
Roger, old chap, you do write a load of old bollocks at times.
I've been thinking about an interim position on tariffs before trade deals are in place. Could we adopt a position to put in place mirror tariffs by default - I.e. We set tariffs at the same rate others set on us. If they set 0%, we set 0%. If they go punitive, so do we. The incentive therefore is for everyone to go low. Thoughts?
The WTO most favoured nation tariffs on our exports would be £4.6 billion, and theres would be around £8.6 billion.
In that sense our membership of the EU is a sort of buy one, pay for two deal... (We pay twice that in net contributions)
I am glad I haven't upset you and of course I take your points about the role of the City and the benefits that it has provided. Nonetheless, we do seem to have lost ground somewhat over recent years and I rather think I stand by what I said about gentlemen capitalists and chronic underinvestment in our own industries.
Be that as it may, if we are back on speaking terms, may I ask you for your views on Cameron's successor?
I think there has always been a good City and, certainly, for most of my working life, a rather larger bad City.
But it does not do to be too sentimental about the old City. Plenty of crooks in it and skullduggery aplenty.
If you want to know what went wrong a good start is in Julian Barnes' Letters from London. His essay on the Lloyds (insurance rather than the bank) disaster is a masterpiece. He describes very well what happens when trust is abused and vanishes. And, in essence, that is what has happened to the City and what it is now - very painfully and slowly - trying to rebuild. A pity that so many grandees and others forgot the old saying: "Trust comes in at a walk and goes out at a gallop."
A saying that politicians might do well to remember, too.
In terms of leadership of teams, trust is built by the leader consciously making him- or herself vulnerable. What would be the equivalent first step in the process in banking?
FPT: An astonishing level of ignorance on here about our immigration system. Non-EU migrants have already been subject to a points based system and levies for using the NHS for the past 5 years.
so lets put e.u migrants under the same system and get rid of our racist immigration system we have now.
Quite. How Remainers can defend this perplexes me. Bring in the smart, ambitious and articulate from wherever - not just 27 others who are almost all Caucasian. It's a fatal flaw in their argument.
All immigration systems are racist to a grater or lesser extent. We confer rights on the citizens of the Isle of Man, for instance, to live and work in the UK.
Are we considering getting rid of that, as well as Brexit? If not, you can't play the 'racist' card, as the system is just as racist - it's just that the number of countries with whom we have a reciprocal work relationship is somewhat smaller.
The Isle of Man (along with Jersey and Guernsey) are under protection of the Crown, so de facto they are British territories.
Crikey, that would mean companies working in the UK would actually have to invest in training people. They won't like that.
A bit of Bennery which I quite liked and got serious consideration under Blair before rejection was a compulsory training levy, the proceeds of which would be available to any company (or college) operating an approved training scheme, which they could open to outside trainees. So someone like Honda could make a profit from having a good engineering training scheme, while XYZ Engineering, which coudn't be bothered to give their staff any additional training could simply pay the levy and have Honda train them instead.
Lots of practical difficulties (which is why Blair rejected it, apart from his wariness of the state interfering) - need for approval, availability of local schemes, etc. But the idea that you have to give your staff training but can choose whether to do it yourself seemed essentially sound, as opposed to the current situation where companies who don't train poach staff from companies that do.
Quite. Something could be done one way or another though. Importing people to leave people on lower incomes or the dole just doesn't make sense to me.
I thought politicians were supposed to look after the electorate they had.
How Remainers can defend this perplexes me. Bring in the smart, ambitious and articulate from wherever - not just 27 others who are almost all Caucasian. It's a fatal flaw in their argument.
There were more non-EU than EU migrants last year
How Brexiteers can claim this is racist perplexes me. It's a fatal flaw in their argument.
Is this another fundamental reason why LEAVE will lose? Number 121 in a very long list?
I've been thinking about an interim position on tariffs before trade deals are in place. Could we adopt a position to put in place mirror tariffs by default - I.e. We set tariffs at the same rate others set on us. If they set 0%, we set 0%. If they go punitive, so do we. The incentive therefore is for everyone to go low. Thoughts?
The WTO most favoured nation tariffs on our exports would be £4.6 billion, and theres would be around £8.6 billion.
In that sense our membership of the EU is a sort of buy one, pay for two deal... (We pay twice that in net contributions)
So that could makes sense.
I think the biggest potential impact on economic growth other than the issues discussed ad nauseum about trade deals is deregulation. By shedding the most ludicrous or Europe-centric of the EC directives, we would both reduce administrative burden on companies, and enable them to compete more effectively in some sectors in emerging markets where the cost of compliance with EC directives makes our products uncompetitive.
Crikey, that would mean companies working in the UK would actually have to invest in training people. They won't like that.
A bit of Bennery which I quite liked and got serious consideration under Blair before rejection was a compulsory training levy, the proceeds of which would be available to any company (or college) operating an approved training scheme, which they could open to outside trainees. So someone like Honda could make a profit from having a good engineering training scheme, while XYZ Engineering, which coudn't be bothered to give their staff any additional training could simply pay the levy and have Honda train them instead.
Lots of practical difficulties (which is why Blair rejected it, apart from his wariness of the state interfering) - need for approval, availability of local schemes, etc. But the idea that you have to give your staff training but can choose whether to do it yourself seemed essentially sound, as opposed to the current situation where companies who don't train poach staff from companies that do.
Quite. Something could be done one way or another though. Importing people to leave people on lower incomes or the dole just doesn't make sense to me.
I thought politicians were supposed to look after the electorate they had.
Not if you are the Labour party and view your voters as having no other place to go to. Just like Scotland.
Very good thread indeed. A timely dog whistle to those who read PB that Brexit wont be painless. Though Blackburn and the 3 Platos might relish the thought of cold muffins and donkey rides on Eastborne beach without a foreigner in sight many others will see it differently.
You're pointing us towards a very scary place which like all the best dog whistles wont be audible to many.
If the thought of Boris in No 10 just looks like a swap of Tories with contrasting hairstyles think of him on a hot line with Donald Trump.
If you're still not hearing it you're a UKIPer and this isn't meant for you
For those like me who have just had a coffee at their local Italian bar and don't want it to be replaced with a whelk stall leave your computers and start persuading those you know NOW.
What no foreign born whatsoever after brexit? Mass deportations? Pants on fire.
Why not write an article putting out various possibilities instead of this sort of spurious, speculative guff? There are myriad possibilities of what might happen if we vote to leave.
Is this another fundamental reason why LEAVE will lose? Number 121 in a very long list?
It will not necessarily lose the referendum, but it is at least number 121 in a list of things Brexiteers lied about that may bite them on the arse if they win
FPT: An astonishing level of ignorance on here about our immigration system. Non-EU migrants have already been subject to a points based system and levies for using the NHS for the past 5 years.
so lets put e.u migrants under the same system and get rid of our racist immigration system we have now.
Quite. How Remainers can defend this perplexes me. Bring in the smart, ambitious and articulate from wherever - not just 27 others who are almost all Caucasian. It's a fatal flaw in their argument.
The numbers are such that to get immigration down to the 10s of thousands you are going to have to exclude many smart ambitious people from everywhere and completely stop any immigration for any other reasons including marriage , close relatives , asylum etc etc .
Not being racist and successfully getting immigration down to the 10s of thousands are two separate points.
Personally I couldn't care less about getting immigration down to the 10s of thousands (and have said so repeatedly). I do not like racism. What about you? Do you care about getting immigration down? Do you support having a racist policy?
No and No
So you do not oppose removing our current racist policy then?
FPT: An astonishing level of ignorance on here about our immigration system. Non-EU migrants have already been subject to a points based system and levies for using the NHS for the past 5 years.
There's no ignorance - we're talking about EU immigration. Seriously, this is a pretty sophisticated audience - pretending we're knuckle draggers because we disagree isn't going to convince anyone.
But Leavers are talking about a "new" points based system and NHS levies for all as if no one has thought of these things before, when they have been a reality for half a decade for non-EU migrants. That to me suggests a lack of knowledge of the system.
Your prognostications seem generally sound Nick, except I don't think Boris could initiate a 2017 General Election as blithely as you think. More likely he will kick off the negotiations and then govern as normal with them going on in the background for many years. I suspect we'll end up with some kind of quasi-EU-membership arrangement barely distinguishable from what we have now, but by then everyone will have forgotten about June 2016 so it won't matter.
I used to be of that view about the election but I've come round to thinking that Labour would have to vote for one or see extreme disillusionment from their rank and file who believe fervently that Corbyn is popular and an election winnable.
If they don't agree an early election, then they can wait - and have boundary changes coming down the pike at them....
I am glad I haven't upset you and of course I take your points about the role of the City and the benefits that it has provided. Nonetheless, we do seem to have lost ground somewhat over recent years and I rather think I stand by what I said about gentlemen capitalists and chronic underinvestment in our own industries.
Be that as it may, if we are back on speaking terms, may I ask you for your views on Cameron's successor?
I think there has always been a good City and, certainly, for most of my working life, a rather larger bad City.
But it does not do to be too sentimental about the old City. Plenty of crooks in it and skullduggery aplenty.
If you want to know what went wrong a good start is in Julian Barnes' Letters from London. His essay on the Lloyds (insurance rather than the bank) disaster is a masterpiece. He describes very well what happens when trust is abused and vanishes. And, in essence, that is what has happened to the City and what it is now - very painfully and slowly - trying to rebuild. A pity that so many grandees and others forgot the old saying: "Trust comes in at a walk and goes out at a gallop."
A saying that politicians might do well to remember, too.
In terms of leadership of teams, trust is built by the leader consciously making him- or herself vulnerable. What would be the equivalent first step in the process in banking?
Three things: (1) taking responsibility ie making it clear to your team that you have their back and that if things go wrong it's your body which goes in front of the train first. Then trust them not to let you down. And in my experience if you have hired and trained and treated them well, they won't. But you have to take the first step. Too many leaders in banking have taken the glory, the kudos and the money but have not accepted responsibility.
Second, say thank you. Third, teach them, admit your mistakes, accept that mistakes will happen and make it clear that the key thing is to learn from them.
Essentially, it's about being clear what your expectations of behaviour are and enforcing them consistently and fairly for all staff from top to bottom.
Crikey, that would mean companies working in the UK would actually have to invest in training people. They won't like that.
A bit of Bennery which I quite liked and got serious consideration under Blair before rejection was a compulsory training levy, the proceeds of which would be available to any company (or college) operating an approved training scheme, which they could open to outside trainees. So someone like Honda could make a profit from having a good engineering training scheme, while XYZ Engineering, which coudn't be bothered to give their staff any additional training could simply pay the levy and have Honda train them instead.
Lots of practical difficulties (which is why Blair rejected it, apart from his wariness of the state interfering) - need for approval, availability of local schemes, etc. But the idea that you have to give your staff training but can choose whether to do it yourself seemed essentially sound, as opposed to the current situation where companies who don't train poach staff from companies that do.
Quite. Something could be done one way or another though. Importing people to leave people on lower incomes or the dole just doesn't make sense to me. ....
Exactly but it makes sense to the companies concerned, who can dump the costs on to the taxpayer but pocket the profits.
Nick and I have spoken about this before and I think Blair made an enormous mistake in dropping this idea (there was after all, years ago, a compulsory training levy in the building industry). Even Osborne, to be fair to the fool, has revived the idea in a much watered down form.
FPT: An astonishing level of ignorance on here about our immigration system. Non-EU migrants have already been subject to a points based system and levies for using the NHS for the past 5 years.
so lets put e.u migrants under the same system and get rid of our racist immigration system we have now.
Quite. How Remainers can defend this perplexes me. Bring in the smart, ambitious and articulate from wherever - not just 27 others who are almost all Caucasian. It's a fatal flaw in their argument.
The numbers are such that to get immigration down to the 10s of thousands you are going to have to exclude many smart ambitious people from everywhere and completely stop any immigration for any other reasons including marriage , close relatives , asylum etc etc .
Not being racist and successfully getting immigration down to the 10s of thousands are two separate points.
Personally I couldn't care less about getting immigration down to the 10s of thousands (and have said so repeatedly). I do not like racism. What about you? Do you care about getting immigration down? Do you support having a racist policy?
No and No
So you do not oppose removing our current racist policy then?
They are only racist to someone with a warped mind such as you .
I am glad I haven't upset you and of course I take your points about the role of the City and the benefits that it has provided. Nonetheless, we do seem to have lost ground somewhat over recent years and I rather think I stand by what I said about gentlemen capitalists and chronic underinvestment in our own industries.
Be that as it may, if we are back on speaking terms, may I ask you for your views on Cameron's successor?
I think there has always been a good City and, certainly, for most of my working life, a rather larger bad City.
But it does not do to be too sentimental about the old City. Plenty of crooks in it and skullduggery aplenty.
If you want to know what went wrong a good start is in Julian Barnes' Letters from London. His essay on the Lloyds (insurance rather than the bank) disaster is a masterpiece. He describes very well what happens when trust is abused and vanishes. And, in essence, that is what has happened to the City and what it is now - very painfully and slowly - trying to rebuild. A pity that so many grandees and others forgot the old saying: "Trust comes in at a walk and goes out at a gallop."
A saying that politicians might do well to remember, too.
In terms of leadership of teams, trust is built by the leader consciously making him- or herself vulnerable. What would be the equivalent first step in the process in banking?
Three things: (1) taking responsibility ie making it clear to your team that you have their back and that if things go wrong it's your body which goes in front of the train first. Then trust them not to let you down. And in my experience if you have hired and trained and treated them well, they won't. But you have to take the first step. Too many leaders in banking have taken the glory, the kudos and the money but have not accepted responsibility.
Second, say thank you. Third, teach them, admit your mistakes, accept that mistakes will happen and make it clear that the key thing is to learn from them.
Essentially, it's about being clear what your expectations of behaviour are and enforcing them consistently and fairly for all staff from top to bottom.
Oh and be clear that banking is about serving your customers - not about serving yourselves. Banks have forgotten that they are there to serve the needs of others. It has been all about them. And it shouldn't be. It should be about us, whether individuals or companies.
You know things must be getting desperate for remain when they have to wheel out windbag kinnock to try and reach labour voters. The man who lost an election twice
I heard last week that there were serious voices in favour of Hilary Benn. I know this doesn't cut much ice with Labour members but if he's popular with his own MP's and they can see a chance winning even at their most suicidal it must be tempting.
And if it is Boris in 2017 and he's forced into an election Benn would be in an ideal position to win. Particularly if things go as badly as expected after Brexit
Very good thread indeed. A timely dog whistle to those who read PB that Brexit wont be painless. Though Blackburn and the 3 Platos might relish the thought of cold muffins and donkey rides on Eastborne beach without a foreigner in sight many others will see it differently.
You're pointing us towards a very scary place which like all the best dog whistles wont be audible to many.
If the thought of Boris in No 10 just looks like a swap of Tories with contrasting hairstyles think of him on a hot line with Donald Trump.
If you're still not hearing it you're a UKIPer and this isn't meant for you
For those like me who have just had a coffee at their local Italian bar and don't want it to be replaced with a whelk stall leave your computers and start persuading those you know NOW.
What no foreign born whatsoever after brexit? Mass deportations? Pants on fire.
Well, I is foreign-born, and I has been to Eastbourne twice this year, once just to visit the train station (um, it happens!), and then a couple of weeks later ventured down to the seafront and then the pier
I suspect Sean means that the net output of the economy in GDP terms (most of which isn't made of stuff we make but services) will be the same in 10 years time regardless.
I think that will depend on how fast we negotiate our own trade deals. We could be up out by comparison if we do so quickly.
Thank you, but I wasn't making a Brexit point. The original point was how people use the word "recovered" or "back to where we begin" to describe when a growth-rate return to its pre-recession point. I was pointing out that the production lost prior to that point has still not been regained. I hoped to avoid this ambiguity by emphasising the word "total", but Sean_F responded with the word "overall"...which is ambiguous
Perhaps an analogy would help.
* There are two twin children. * One of them is underperforming in school and is held back a year. * After a year the child has "recovered" (scuse the scare quotes) and goes forward. * But he has still lost that year and his twin remains a year ahead - and will remain a year ahead for the rest of the school
That's not a good example (because you age a year a year, but growth rates can vary) but it illustrates the point: returning to the status quo ante recessionis not good enough, the lost production is still lost.
We are always told about the economic horror that will befall us on Brexit. But we will be a much more flexible competitor of the EU. For example, we can't currently turn Port Talbot into the world leader in graphene research, development and manufacture - with a billion pound Government kick-start - because the EU would yell blue murder....
I am glad I haven't upset you and of course I take your points about the role of the City and the benefits that it has provided. Nonetheless, we do seem to have lost ground somewhat over recent years and I rather think I stand by what I said about gentlemen capitalists and chronic underinvestment in our own industries.
Be that as it may, if we are back on speaking terms, may I ask you for your views on Cameron's successor?
I think there has always been a good City and, certainly, for most of my working life, a rather larger bad City.
But it does not do to be too sentimental about the old City. Plenty of crooks in it and skullduggery aplenty.
If you want to know what went wrong a good start is in Julian Barnes' Letters from London. His essay on the Lloyds (insurance rather than the bank) disaster is a masterpiece. He describes very well what happens when trust is abused and vanishes. And, in essence, that is what has happened to the City and what it is now - very painfully and slowly - trying to rebuild. A pity that so many grandees and others forgot the old saying: "Trust comes in at a walk and goes out at a gallop."
A saying that politicians might do well to remember, too.
In terms of leadership of teams, trust is built by the leader consciously making him- or herself vulnerable. What would be the equivalent first step in the process in banking?
Three things: (1) taking responsibility ie making it clear to your team that you have their back and that if things go wrong it's your body which goes in front of the train first. Then trust them not to let you down. And in my experience if you have hired and trained and treated them well, they won't. But you have to take the first step. Too many leaders in banking have taken the glory, the kudos and the money but have not accepted responsibility.
Second, say thank you. Third, teach them, admit your mistakes, accept that mistakes will happen and make it clear that the key thing is to learn from them.
Essentially, it's about being clear what your expectations of behaviour are and enforcing them consistently and fairly for all staff from top to bottom.
No different from leadership in any field, then.
The City needs to go further and drive out the firms that are institutionally bent, it could start with Goldman Sachs and work from there.
FPT: An astonishing level of ignorance on here about our immigration system. Non-EU migrants have already been subject to a points based system and levies for using the NHS for the past 5 years.
so lets put e.u migrants under the same system and get rid of our racist immigration system we have now.
Quite. How Remainers can defend this perplexes me. Bring in the smart, ambitious and articulate from wherever - not just 27 others who are almost all Caucasian. It's a fatal flaw in their argument.
The numbers are such that to get immigration down to the 10s of thousands you are going to have to exclude many smart ambitious people from everywhere and completely stop any immigration for any other reasons including marriage , close relatives , asylum etc etc .
Not being racist and successfully getting immigration down to the 10s of thousands are two separate points.
Personally I couldn't care less about getting immigration down to the 10s of thousands (and have said so repeatedly). I do not like racism. What about you? Do you care about getting immigration down? Do you support having a racist policy?
No and No
So you do not oppose removing our current racist policy then?
They are only racist to someone with a warped mind such as you .
Discrimination isn't the slightest bit racist in your eyes?
I heard last week that there were serious voices in favour of Hilary Benn. I know this doesn't cut much ice with Labour members but if he's popular with his own MP's and they can see a chance winning even at their most suicidal it must be tempting.
And if it is Boris in 2017 and he's forced into an election Benn would be in an ideal position to win. Particularly if things go as badly as expected after Brexit
Boris would beat Benn especially as the electorate themselves voted for Brexit
You know things must be getting desperate for remain when they have to wheel out windbag kinnock to try and reach labour voters. The man who lost an election twice
Very good thread indeed. A timely dog whistle to those who read PB that Brexit wont be painless. Though Blackburn and the 3 Platos might relish the thought of cold muffins and donkey rides on Eastborne beach without a foreigner in sight many others will see it differently.
You're pointing us towards a very scary place which like all the best dog whistles wont be audible to many.
If the thought of Boris in No 10 just looks like a swap of Tories with contrasting hairstyles think of him on a hot line with Donald Trump.
If you're still not hearing it you're a UKIPer and this isn't meant for you
For those like me who have just had a coffee at their local Italian bar and don't want it to be replaced with a whelk stall leave your computers and start persuading those you know NOW.
What no foreign born whatsoever after brexit? Mass deportations? Pants on fire.
Well, I is foreign-born, and I has been to Eastbourne twice this year, once just to visit the train station (um, it happens!), and then a couple of weeks later ventured down to the seafront and then the pier
Enjoy it while it lasts. According to Roger, you will wish to make your dispositions accordingly on the 24th.
You know things must be getting desperate for remain when they have to wheel out windbag kinnock to try and reach labour voters. The man who lost an election twice
Crikey, that would mean companies working in the UK would actually have to invest in training people. They won't like that.
A bit of Bennery which I quite liked and got serious consideration under Blair before rejection was a compulsory training levy, the proceeds of which would be available to any company (or college) operating an approved training scheme, which they could open to outside trainees. So someone like Honda could make a profit from having a good engineering training scheme, while XYZ Engineering, which coudn't be bothered to give their staff any additional training could simply pay the levy and have Honda train them instead.
Lots of practical difficulties (which is why Blair rejected it, apart from his wariness of the state interfering) - need for approval, availability of local schemes, etc. But the idea that you have to give your staff training but can choose whether to do it yourself seemed essentially sound, as opposed to the current situation where companies who don't train poach staff from companies that do.
Quite. Something could be done one way or another though. Importing people to leave people on lower incomes or the dole just doesn't make sense to me.
I thought politicians were supposed to look after the electorate they had.
Not if you are the Labour party and view your voters as having no other place to go to. Just like Scotland.
Fewer Labour voters back Leave than backed Yes in Scotland though
I heard last week that there were serious voices in favour of Hilary Benn. I know this doesn't cut much ice with Labour members but if he's popular with his own MP's and they can see a chance winning even at their most suicidal it must be tempting.
And if it is Boris in 2017 and he's forced into an election Benn would be in an ideal position to win. Particularly if things go as badly as expected after Brexit
Boris would beat Benn especially as the electorate themselves voted for Brexit
They will have voted for it but like Scotland the winners aren't necessarily thanked particularly if it ends tits up
FPT: An astonishing level of ignorance on here about our immigration system. Non-EU migrants have already been subject to a points based system and levies for using the NHS for the past 5 years.
so lets put e.u migrants under the same system and get rid of our racist immigration system we have now.
Quite. How Remainers can defend this perplexes me. Bring in the smart, ambitious and articulate from wherever - not just 27 others who are almost all Caucasian. It's a fatal flaw in their argument.
The numbers are such that to get immigration down to the 10s of thousands you are going to have to exclude many smart ambitious people from everywhere and completely stop any immigration for any other reasons including marriage , close relatives , asylum etc etc .
Not being racist and successfully getting immigration down to the 10s of thousands are two separate points.
Personally I couldn't care less about getting immigration down to the 10s of thousands (and have said so repeatedly). I do not like racism. What about you? Do you care about getting immigration down? Do you support having a racist policy?
No and No
So you do not oppose removing our current racist policy then?
They are only racist to someone with a warped mind such as you .
Discrimination isn't the slightest bit racist in your eyes?
Discrimination may be caused by a number of factors but race does not have to be one of them .
Crikey, that would mean companies working in the UK would actually have to invest in training people. They won't like that.
A bit of Bennery which I quite liked and got serious consideration under Blair before rejection was a compulsory training levy, the proceeds of which would be available to any company (or college) operating an approved training scheme, which they could open to outside trainees. So someone like Honda could make a profit from having a good engineering training scheme, while XYZ Engineering, which coudn't be bothered to give their staff any additional training could simply pay the levy and have Honda train them instead.
Lots of practical difficulties (which is why Blair rejected it, apart from his wariness of the state interfering) - need for approval, availability of local schemes, etc. But the idea that you have to give your staff training but can choose whether to do it yourself seemed essentially sound, as opposed to the current situation where companies who don't train poach staff from companies that do.
Quite. Something could be done one way or another though. Importing people to leave people on lower incomes or the dole just doesn't make sense to me.
I thought politicians were supposed to look after the electorate they had.
Not if you are the Labour party and view your voters as having no other place to go to. Just like Scotland.
Fewer Labour voters back Leave than backed Yes in Scotland though
The analogy is that the Labour Leaders support policies that bring in more immigration to the detriment of the working class and under class.
FPT: An astonishing level of ignorance on here about our immigration system. Non-EU migrants have already been subject to a points based system and levies for using the NHS for the past 5 years.
so lets put e.u migrants under the same system and get rid of our racist immigration system we have now.
Quite. How Remainers can defend this perplexes me. Bring in the smart, ambitious and articulate from wherever - not just 27 others who are almost all Caucasian. It's a fatal flaw in their argument.
The numbers are such that to get immigration down to the 10s of thousands you are going to have to exclude many smart ambitious people from everywhere and completely stop any immigration for any other reasons including marriage , close relatives , asylum etc etc .
Not being racist and successfully getting immigration down to the 10s of thousands are two separate points.
Personally I couldn't care less about getting immigration down to the 10s of thousands (and have said so repeatedly). I do not like racism. What about you? Do you care about getting immigration down? Do you support having a racist policy?
No and No
So you do not oppose removing our current racist policy then?
They are only racist to someone with a warped mind such as you .
Discrimination isn't the slightest bit racist in your eyes?
Several years ago, I tried to organise a Sussex PB dinner - Mr Senior made loads of excuses why he wasn't available no matter what date I suggested. I came to the conclusion that he considered anyone other than LDs were unworthy and too dirty to associate with.
FPT: An astonishing level of ignorance on here about our immigration system. Non-EU migrants have already been subject to a points based system and levies for using the NHS for the past 5 years.
so lets put e.u migrants under the same system and get rid of our racist immigration system we have now.
Quite. How Remainers can defend this perplexes me. Bring in the smart, ambitious and articulate from wherever - not just 27 others who are almost all Caucasian. It's a fatal flaw in their argument.
The numbers are such that to get immigration down to the 10s of thousands you are going to have to exclude many smart ambitious people from everywhere and completely stop any immigration for any other reasons including marriage , close relatives , asylum etc etc .
Not being racist and successfully getting immigration down to the 10s of thousands are two separate points.
Personally I couldn't care less about getting immigration down to the 10s of thousands (and have said so repeatedly). I do not like racism. What about you? Do you care about getting immigration down? Do you support having a racist policy?
No and No
So you do not oppose removing our current racist policy then?
They are only racist to someone with a warped mind such as you .
Discrimination isn't the slightest bit racist in your eyes?
Discrimination may be caused by a number of factors but race does not have to be one of them .
So why are we granting free movement to all the impoverished Eastern European Caucasian Christian nations but not to Turkey or similar?
I think there has always been a good City and, certainly, for most of my working life, a rather larger bad City.
But it does not do to be too sentimental about the old City. Plenty of crooks in it and skullduggery aplenty.
If you want to know what went wrong a good start is in Julian Barnes' Letters from London. His essay on the Lloyds (insurance rather than the bank) disaster is a masterpiece. He describes very well what happens when trust is abused and vanishes. And, in essence, that is what has happened to the City and what it is now - very painfully and slowly - trying to rebuild. A pity that so many grandees and others forgot the old saying: "Trust comes in at a walk and goes out at a gallop."
A saying that politicians might do well to remember, too.
In terms of leadership of teams, trust is built by the leader consciously making him- or herself vulnerable. What would be the equivalent first step in the process in banking?
Three things: (1) taking responsibility ie making it clear to your team that you have their back and that if things go wrong it's your body which goes in front of the train first. Then trust them not to let you down. And in my experience if you have hired and trained and treated them well, they won't. But you have to take the first step. Too many leaders in banking have taken the glory, the kudos and the money but have not accepted responsibility.
Second, say thank you. Third, teach them, admit your mistakes, accept that mistakes will happen and make it clear that the key thing is to learn from them.
Essentially, it's about being clear what your expectations of behaviour are and enforcing them consistently and fairly for all staff from top to bottom.
No different from leadership in any field, then.
The City needs to go further and drive out the firms that are institutionally bent, it could start with Goldman Sachs and work from there.
Indeed: no different from leadership anywhere.
But where there is money there is greed and stupidity so important to hire people with the right moral compass, with good judgment, who will try and do the right thing even when no-one is looking and to have these sorts of people as leaders. The City forgot this basic lesson at vast expense to it and us.
(Slight boasting here) I have made a bit of a name for myself giving talks on this subject so I could bore for hours on this topic. If I get the chance to do a talk to which outsiders are invited I will let you know.
But now I'm about to get my hair done to be even more gorgeous ( ) so till later.....
FPT: An astonishing level of ignorance on here about our immigration system. Non-EU migrants have already been subject to a points based system and levies for using the NHS for the past 5 years.
so lets put e.u migrants under the same system and get rid of our racist immigration system we have now.
Quite. How Remainers can defend this perplexes me. Bring in the smart, ambitious and articulate from wherever - not just 27 others who are almost all Caucasian. It's a fatal flaw in their argument.
The numbers are such that to get immigration down to the 10s of thousands you are going to have to exclude many smart ambitious people from everywhere and completely stop any immigration for any other reasons including marriage , close relatives , asylum etc etc .
Yet, quite remarkably, the numbers were in the tens of thousands for decades up until about fifteen years ago.
I've been thinking about an interim position on tariffs before trade deals are in place. Could we adopt a position to put in place mirror tariffs by default - I.e. We set tariffs at the same rate others set on us. If they set 0%, we set 0%. If they go punitive, so do we. The incentive therefore is for everyone to go low. Thoughts?
The WTO most favoured nation tariffs on our exports would be £4.6 billion, and theres would be around £8.6 billion.
In that sense our membership of the EU is a sort of buy one, pay for two deal... (We pay twice that in net contributions)
So that could makes sense.
I think the biggest potential impact on economic growth other than the issues discussed ad nauseum about trade deals is deregulation. By shedding the most ludicrous or Europe-centric of the EC directives, we would both reduce administrative burden on companies, and enable them to compete more effectively in some sectors in emerging markets where the cost of compliance with EC directives makes our products uncompetitive.
Some could be got rid of which would help to revive some businesses.
You know things must be getting desperate for remain when they have to wheel out windbag kinnock to try and reach labour voters. The man who lost an election twice
After pleading to pensioners in SAGA magazine and threaten WW3, we'll never host the Olympics or WCup again...I'm not sure what's left for Remain.
Why not write an article putting out various possibilities instead of this sort of spurious, speculative guff? There are myriad possibilities of what might happen if we vote to leave.
I'd missed the latest survey, but as others have pointed out, Gove has given a Shermanesque denial of the slightest interest in standing. I don't think there are other credible Leave candidates beyond Boris (credible in the sense that the membership won't feel cheated if they're on offer instead of Boris), but you're welcome to write a piece pointing them out.
FPT: An astonishing level of ignorance on here about our immigration system. Non-EU migrants have already been subject to a points based system and levies for using the NHS for the past 5 years.
so lets put e.u migrants under the same system and get rid of our racist immigration system we have now.
Quite. How Remainers can defend this perplexes me. Bring in the smart, ambitious and articulate from wherever - not just 27 others who are almost all Caucasian. It's a fatal flaw in their argument.
The numbers are such that to get immigration down to the 10s of thousands you are going to have to exclude many smart ambitious people from everywhere and completely stop any immigration for any other reasons including marriage , close relatives , asylum etc etc .
Close relatives - please define
Parents , children .
So if I come here I'm entitled to bring my Mum and Dad?
Crikey, that would mean companies working in the UK would actually have to invest in training people. They won't like that.
A bit of Bennery which I quite liked and got serious consideration under Blair before rejection was a compulsory training levy, the proceeds of which would be available to any company (or college) operating an approved training scheme, which they could open to outside trainees. So someone like Honda could make a profit from having a good engineering training scheme, while XYZ Engineering, which coudn't be bothered to give their staff any additional training could simply pay the levy and have Honda train them instead.
Lots of practical difficulties (which is why Blair rejected it, apart from his wariness of the state interfering) - need for approval, availability of local schemes, etc. But the idea that you have to give your staff training but can choose whether to do it yourself seemed essentially sound, as opposed to the current situation where companies who don't train poach staff from companies that do.
Quite. Something could be done one way or another though. Importing people to leave people on lower incomes or the dole just doesn't make sense to me.
I thought politicians were supposed to look after the electorate they had.
Not if you are the Labour party and view your voters as having no other place to go to. Just like Scotland.
Quite. It turns out they had, though I'm not sure the SNP have any useful answers.
FPT: An astonishing level of ignorance on here about our immigration system. Non-EU migrants have already been subject to a points based system and levies for using the NHS for the past 5 years.
so lets put e.u migrants under the same system and get rid of our racist immigration system we have now.
Quite. How Remainers can defend this perplexes me. Bring in the smart, ambitious and articulate from wherever - not just 27 others who are almost all Caucasian. It's a fatal flaw in their argument.
All immigration systems are racist to a grater or lesser extent. We confer rights on the citizens of the Isle of Man, for instance, to live and work in the UK.
Are we considering getting rid of that, as well as Brexit? If not, you can't play the 'racist' card, as the system is just as racist - it's just that the number of countries with whom we have a reciprocal work relationship is somewhat smaller.
The Isle of Man (along with Jersey and Guernsey) are under protection of the Crown, so de facto they are British territories.
OK then, presumably the right of Irish citizens to live and work in the UK, which dates back to independence will also be rescinded.
Crikey, that would mean companies working in the UK would actually have to invest in training people. They won't like that.
A bit of Bennery which I quite liked and got serious consideration under Blair before rejection was a compulsory training levy, the proceeds of which would be available to any company (or college) operating an approved training scheme, which they could open to outside trainees. So someone like Honda could make a profit from having a good engineering training scheme, while XYZ Engineering, which coudn't be bothered to give their staff any additional training could simply pay the levy and have Honda train them instead.
Lots of practical difficulties (which is why Blair rejected it, apart from his wariness of the state interfering) - need for approval, availability of local schemes, etc. But the idea that you have to give your staff training but can choose whether to do it yourself seemed essentially sound, as opposed to the current situation where companies who don't train poach staff from companies that do.
Quite. Something could be done one way or another though. Importing people to leave people on lower incomes or the dole just doesn't make sense to me.
I thought politicians were supposed to look after the electorate they had.
Crikey, that would mean companies working in the UK would actually have to invest in training people. They won't like that.
A bit of Bennery which I quite liked and got serious consideration under Blair before rejection was a compulsory training levy, the proceeds of which would be available to any company (or college) operating an approved training scheme, which they could open to outside trainees. So someone like Honda could make a profit from having a good engineering training scheme, while XYZ Engineering, which coudn't be bothered to give their staff any additional training could simply pay the levy and have Honda train them instead.
Lots of practical difficulties (which is why Blair rejected it, apart from his wariness of the state interfering) - need for approval, availability of local schemes, etc. But the idea that you have to give your staff training but can choose whether to do it yourself seemed essentially sound, as opposed to the current situation where companies who don't train poach staff from companies that do.
Quite. Something could be done one way or another though. Importing people to leave people on lower incomes or the dole just doesn't make sense to me.
I thought politicians were supposed to look after the electorate they had.
Not if you are the Labour party and view your voters as having no other place to go to. Just like Scotland.
Fewer Labour voters back Leave than backed Yes in Scotland though
The analogy is that the Labour Leaders support policies that bring in more immigration to the detriment of the working class and under class.
I don't disagree but the Labour vote under Corbyn is more made up of the liberal middle-class and ethnic minorities than the white working class many of whom are now voting UKIP. It is Cameron who is most at risk of losing Leave voters to UKIP, Labour will lose a few but not as many as it lost to the SNP
I posted last night I find foreign born, British citizens who support Brexit rather mean and quite selfish- kind of we're alright chumps, but sod the rest of you lot.
In fact, thinking about it, I find practically all people (whether foreign born or not) who support Brexit quite mean spirited and selfish. I can even think of my friendship group- the Brexit lot are mostly money obsessed and more than a little bit racist. Thinking about it, they probably enjoy watching Top Gearing in the halcyon days of Clarkson too.
I heard last week that there were serious voices in favour of Hilary Benn. I know this doesn't cut much ice with Labour members but if he's popular with his own MP's and they can see a chance winning even at their most suicidal it must be tempting.
And if it is Boris in 2017 and he's forced into an election Benn would be in an ideal position to win. Particularly if things go as badly as expected after Brexit
Boris would beat Benn especially as the electorate themselves voted for Brexit
They will have voted for it but like Scotland the winners aren't necessarily thanked particularly if it ends tits up
The winners in this case would be the nationalists who are more fervent and ideological, in Scotland the unionist establishment won
Crikey, that would mean companies working in the UK would actually have to invest in training people. They won't like that.
A bit of Bennery which I quite liked and got serious consideration under Blair before rejection was a compulsory training levy, the proceeds of which would be available to any company (or college) operating an approved training scheme, which they could open to outside trainees. So someone like Honda could make a profit from having a good engineering training scheme, while XYZ Engineering, which coudn't be bothered to give their staff any additional training could simply pay the levy and have Honda train them instead.
Lots of practical difficulties (which is why Blair rejected it, apart from his wariness of the state interfering) - need for approval, availability of local schemes, etc. But the idea that you have to give your staff training but can choose whether to do it yourself seemed essentially sound, as opposed to the current situation where companies who don't train poach staff from companies that do.
Quite. Something could be done one way or another though. Importing people to leave people on lower incomes or the dole just doesn't make sense to me.
I thought politicians were supposed to look after the electorate they had.
Not if you are the Labour party and view your voters as having no other place to go to. Just like Scotland.
Fewer Labour voters back Leave than backed Yes in Scotland though
The analogy is that the Labour Leaders support policies that bring in more immigration to the detriment of the working class and under class.
I don't disagree but the Labour vote under Corbyn is more made up of the liberal middle-class and ethnic minorities than the white working class many of whom are now voting UKIP. It is Cameron who is most at risk of losing Leave voters to UKIP, Labour will lose a few but not as many as it lost to the SNP
I've been thinking about an interim position on tariffs before trade deals are in place. Could we adopt a position to put in place mirror tariffs by default - I.e. We set tariffs at the same rate others set on us. If they set 0%, we set 0%. If they go punitive, so do we. The incentive therefore is for everyone to go low. Thoughts?
The WTO most favoured nation tariffs on our exports would be £4.6 billion, and theres would be around £8.6 billion.
In that sense our membership of the EU is a sort of buy one, pay for two deal... (We pay twice that in net contributions)
So that could makes sense.
I think the biggest potential impact on economic growth other than the issues discussed ad nauseum about trade deals is deregulation. By shedding the most ludicrous or Europe-centric of the EC directives, we would both reduce administrative burden on companies, and enable them to compete more effectively in some sectors in emerging markets where the cost of compliance with EC directives makes our products uncompetitive.
Some could be got rid of which would help to revive some businesses.
As an Out-er, I'm always intrigued by this question: what could be removed?
I would welcome the end of VAT-mess. And re-opting out of the Social Chapter. But what else is there? I'm a small business person many times over (CrowdScores, PythonAnywhere, THS Partners, Genius Sports Group), and I must confess that - other than in the case of VAT-mess - I simply haven't run up against EU regulations in any of my businesses*.
* Requirements for data to reside in the EU may change that down the line.
Nick it's not that Boris won't necessarily become leader. He has a good chance but it's certainly no shoo-in. He had a bad start to this campaign as reflected in the polling of Conservative members, who now rate Michael Gove more highly. Just remember that the selection of the next Prime Minister will (probably) have nothing to do with the public but with Tory members.
My point is just this: there are so so so many possible ways the cookie could crumble on a Brexit.
FPT: An astonishing level of ignorance on here about our immigration system. Non-EU migrants have already been subject to a points based system and levies for using the NHS for the past 5 years.
so lets put e.u migrants under the same system and get rid of our racist immigration system we have now.
Quite. How Remainers can defend this perplexes me. Bring in the smart, ambitious and articulate from wherever - not just 27 others who are almost all Caucasian. It's a fatal flaw in their argument.
The numbers are such that to get immigration down to the 10s of thousands you are going to have to exclude many smart ambitious people from everywhere and completely stop any immigration for any other reasons including marriage , close relatives , asylum etc etc .
Not being racist and successfully getting immigration down to the 10s of thousands are two separate points.
Personally I couldn't care less about getting immigration down to the 10s of thousands (and have said so repeatedly). I do not like racism. What about you? Do you care about getting immigration down? Do you support having a racist policy?
No and No
So you do not oppose removing our current racist policy then?
They are only racist to someone with a warped mind such as you .
Discrimination isn't the slightest bit racist in your eyes?
Several years ago, I tried to organise a Sussex PB dinner - Mr Senior made loads of excuses why he wasn't available no matter what date I suggested. I came to the conclusion that he considered anyone other than LDs were unworthy and too dirty to associate with.
Some kind of uptick for the Euro, a period of financial stability, open warfare in the Tory party, open warfare in the Labour party, the LD's irrelevant, and UKIP making a small gain, as well as the Greens.
Crikey, that would mean companies working in the UK would actually have to invest in training people. They won't like that.
A bit of Bennery which I quite liked and got serious consideration under Blair before rejection was a compulsory training levy, the proceeds of which would be available to any company (or college) operating an approved training scheme, which they could open to outside trainees. So someone like Honda could make a profit from having a good engineering training scheme, while XYZ Engineering, which coudn't be bothered to give their staff any additional training could simply pay the levy and have Honda train them instead.
Lots of practical difficulties (which is why Blair rejected it, apart from his wariness of the state interfering) - need for approval, availability of local schemes, etc. But the idea that you have to give your staff training but can choose whether to do it yourself seemed essentially sound, as opposed to the current situation where companies who don't train poach staff from companies that do.
Quite. Something could be done one way or another though. Importing people to leave people on lower incomes or the dole just doesn't make sense to me.
I thought politicians were supposed to look after the electorate they had.
Not if you are the Labour party and view your voters as having no other place to go to. Just like Scotland.
Fewer Labour voters back Leave than backed Yes in Scotland though
The analogy is that the Labour Leaders support policies that bring in more immigration to the detriment of the working class and under class.
I don't disagree but the Labour vote under Corbyn is more made up of the liberal middle-class and ethnic minorities than the white working class many of whom are now voting UKIP. It is Cameron who is most at risk of losing Leave voters to UKIP, Labour will lose a few but not as many as it lost to the SNP
That's hardly a reassuring yardstick.
If the Tories lose even more to UKIP Labour still makes a net gain however small
FPT: An astonishing level of ignorance on here about our immigration system. Non-EU migrants have already been subject to a points based system and levies for using the NHS for the past 5 years.
so lets put e.u migrants under the same system and get rid of our racist immigration system we have now.
Quite. How Remainers can defend this perplexes me. Bring in the smart, ambitious and articulate from wherever - not just 27 others who are almost all Caucasian. It's a fatal flaw in their argument.
The numbers are such that to get immigration down to the 10s of thousands you are going to have to exclude many smart ambitious people from everywhere and completely stop any immigration for any other reasons including marriage , close relatives , asylum etc etc .
Not being racist and successfully getting immigration down to the 10s of thousands are two separate points.
Personally I couldn't care less about getting immigration down to the 10s of thousands (and have said so repeatedly). I do not like racism. What about you? Do you care about getting immigration down? Do you support having a racist policy?
No and No
So you do not oppose removing our current racist policy then?
They are only racist to someone with a warped mind such as you .
Discrimination isn't the slightest bit racist in your eyes?
Discrimination may be caused by a number of factors but race does not have to be one of them .
So why are we granting free movement to all the impoverished Eastern European Caucasian Christian nations but not to Turkey or similar?
Because the former are in the EU and Turkey is not .
Crikey, that would mean companies working in the UK would actually have to invest in training people. They won't like that.
A bit of Bennery which I quite liked and got serious consideration under Blair before rejection was a compulsory training levy, the proceeds of which would be available to any company (or college) operating an approved training scheme, which they could open to outside trainees. So someone like Honda could make a profit from having a good engineering training scheme, while XYZ Engineering, which coudn't be bothered to give their staff any additional training could simply pay the levy and have Honda train them instead.
Lots of practical difficulties (which is why Blair rejected it, apart from his wariness of the state interfering) - need for approval, availability of local schemes, etc. But the idea that you have to give your staff training but can choose whether to do it yourself seemed essentially sound, as opposed to the current situation where companies who don't train poach staff from companies that do.
Quite. Something could be done one way or another though. Importing people to leave people on lower incomes or the dole just doesn't make sense to me.
I thought politicians were supposed to look after the electorate they had.
That's where the racism comes in.
I see. So looking after the electorate you have is racist?
Thought provoking article. Another factor surely is an early election in 2017 will be dire for Labour in terms of finances. Or have things improved of late?
FPT: An astonishing level of ignorance on here about our immigration system. Non-EU migrants have already been subject to a points based system and levies for using the NHS for the past 5 years.
so lets put e.u migrants under the same system and get rid of our racist immigration system we have now.
Quite. How Remainers can defend this perplexes me. Bring in the smart, ambitious and articulate from wherever - not just 27 others who are almost all Caucasian. It's a fatal flaw in their argument.
The numbers are such that to get immigration down to the 10s of thousands you are going to have to exclude many smart ambitious people from everywhere and completely stop any immigration for any other reasons including marriage , close relatives , asylum etc etc .
Not being racist and successfully getting immigration down to the 10s of thousands are two separate points.
Personally I couldn't care less about getting immigration down to the 10s of thousands (and have said so repeatedly). I do not like racism. What about you? Do you care about getting immigration down? Do you support having a racist policy?
No and No
So you do not oppose removing our current racist policy then?
They are only racist to someone with a warped mind such as you .
Discrimination isn't the slightest bit racist in your eyes?
Discrimination may be caused by a number of factors but race does not have to be one of them .
So why are we granting free movement to all the impoverished Eastern European Caucasian Christian nations but not to Turkey or similar?
Because the former are in the EU and Turkey is not .
That is a truism. It is a statement of fact it is not a reason why we should discriminate this way.
Nick it's not that Boris won't necessarily become leader. He has a good chance but it's certainly no shoo-in. He had a bad start to this campaign as reflected in the polling of Conservative members, who now rate Michael Gove more highly. Just remember that the selection of the next Prime Minister will (probably) have nothing to do with the public but with Tory members.
My point is just this: there are so so so many possible ways the cookie could crumble on a Brexit.
Gove is the only real alternative to Boris if Leave and I doubt he will run but accept the Treasury under Boris instead
and now Ladbrokes saying more money going on Leave than Remain, one wonders whether we have hit CROSSOVER, with the undecideds falling away in Leave's favour , and Leave on the incline overall , Remain on the decline, if this can be sustained over the next three weeks , we could be heading for a narrow Leave win. However, I'm sure a "Vow" will be produced to twist arms before the big vote.
Crikey, that would mean companies working in the UK would actually have to invest in training people. They won't like that.
A bit of Bennery which I quite liked and got serious consideration under Blair before rejection was a compulsory training levy, the proceeds of which would be available to any company (or college) operating an approved training scheme, which they could open to outside trainees. So someone like Honda could make a profit from having a good engineering training scheme, while XYZ Engineering, which coudn't be bothered to give their staff any additional training could simply pay the levy and have Honda train them instead.
Lots of practical difficulties (which is why Blair rejected it, apart from his wariness of the state interfering) - need for approval, availability of local schemes, etc. But the idea that you have to give your staff training but can choose whether to do it yourself seemed essentially sound, as opposed to the current situation where companies who don't train poach staff from companies that do.
Quite. Something could be done one way or another though. Importing people to leave people on lower incomes or the dole just doesn't make sense to me.
I thought politicians were supposed to look after the electorate they had.
That's where the racism comes in.
I see. So looking after the electorate you have is racist?
Glad we've cleared that up.
Half the electorate are racist, apparently. Including LD and Labour voters. Isn't it simply awful - who knew?
I've been thinking about an interim position on tariffs before trade deals are in place. Could we adopt a position to put in place mirror tariffs by default - I.e. We set tariffs at the same rate others set on us. If they set 0%, we set 0%. If they go punitive, so do we. The incentive therefore is for everyone to go low. Thoughts?
The WTO most favoured nation tariffs on our exports would be £4.6 billion, and theres would be around £8.6 billion.
In that sense our membership of the EU is a sort of buy one, pay for two deal... (We pay twice that in net contributions)
So that could makes sense.
I think the biggest potential impact on economic growth other than the issues discussed ad nauseum about trade deals is deregulation. By shedding the most ludicrous or Europe-centric of the EC directives, we would both reduce administrative burden on companies, and enable them to compete more effectively in some sectors in emerging markets where the cost of compliance with EC directives makes our products uncompetitive.
Some could be got rid of which would help to revive some businesses.
As an Out-er, I'm always intrigued by this question: what could be removed?
I would welcome the end of VAT-mess. And re-opting out of the Social Chapter. But what else is there? I'm a small business person many times over (CrowdScores, PythonAnywhere, THS Partners, Genius Sports Group), and I must confess that - other than in the case of VAT-mess - I simply haven't run up against EU regulations in any of my businesses*.
* Requirements for data to reside in the EU may change that down the line.
Clinical trials directive is one, then the one that says modern art can't be sold in the EU without a levy to the artist which means they are sold offshore. Many of the regulations are daft.
Your prognostications seem generally sound Nick, except I don't think Boris could initiate a 2017 General Election as blithely as you think. More likely he will kick off the negotiations and then govern as normal with them going on in the background for many years. I suspect we'll end up with some kind of quasi-EU-membership arrangement barely distinguishable from what we have now, but by then everyone will have forgotten about June 2016 so it won't matter.
We'll have nearly 4 years of negotiation - and you can be sure UKIP will keep the pressure on if it appears that the UK is giving up too much.
UKIP will be utterly irrelevant by then, possibly even non-existent. But they're only equipped to agitate about the raw, simple stuff anyway: In or Out; Yes or No; Good or Evil. Intervening in the fussy, drawn-out and laborious process of international trade diplomacy would be beyond their functionality. They don't even know what they want to replace EU membership with now. How can they possibly stick their oar in post-Brexit?
Mr. Dawning, You wouldn't consider the idea that for as long as I have been on here (2007) I have been reading posts that UKIP are irrelevant? Yet we seem to having a referendum this month, why do you think that is?
Maybe I am just getting old and senile (Herself thinks so) but I am beginning to see the truth in the old idea that the influence of power is actually trumped by the power of influence.
Mr Llama, UKIP were united - powerfully so - by a single aim: annulling Britain's membership of the EU. There's no unity whatsoever about what happens next. We've everything from turning Britain into the free-trade capital of the planet, with all the immigration and hullabaloo that would entail, to raising the drawbridge and returning to a time when the AA saluted. UKIP will soon be a party without a purpose.
Why does free trade require mass migration?
Because global non-isolationist companies, in a global non-isolationist nation will seek the best employees globally.
Horseshit, America seems to be doing fine without free movement with anyone.
* Requirements for data to reside in the EU may change that down the line.
This has cropped up in work. We are expanding into Big Data and our external cloudstorage is based on a server in Ireland. Microsoft are (i think) building a server in the UK which may satisfy post-Brexit data protection requirements.
Crikey, that would mean companies working in the UK would actually have to invest in training people. They won't like that.
A bit of Bennery which I quite liked and got serious consideration under Blair before rejection was a compulsory training levy, the proceeds of which would be available to any company (or college) operating an approved training scheme, which they could open to outside trainees. So someone like Honda could make a profit from having a good engineering training scheme, while XYZ Engineering, which coudn't be bothered to give their staff any additional training could simply pay the levy and have Honda train them instead.
Lots of practical difficulties (which is why Blair rejected it, apart from his wariness of the state interfering) - need for approval, availability of local schemes, etc. But the idea that you have to give your staff training but can choose whether to do it yourself seemed essentially sound, as opposed to the current situation where companies who don't train poach staff from companies that do.
Quite. Something could be done one way or another though. Importing people to leave people on lower incomes or the dole just doesn't make sense to me.
I thought politicians were supposed to look after the electorate they had.
That's where the racism comes in.
I see. So looking after the electorate you have is racist?
Glad we've cleared that up.
Half the electorate are racist, apparently. Including LD and Labour voters. Isn't it simply awful - who knew?
Quite. And people wonder why people don't vote. Why would you if looking after the welfare of the voter is racist?
and now Ladbrokes saying more money going on Leave than Remain, one wonders whether we have hit CROSSOVER, with the undecideds falling away in Leave's favour , and Leave on the incline overall , Remain on the decline, if this can be sustained over the next three weeks , we could be heading for a narrow Leave win. However, I'm sure a "Vow" will be produced to twist arms before the big vote.
The VOW was produce 13 weeks ago or so - in the Form of Cameron saying that if he didn't get a good negotiation result from the EU he would recommend we leave.
So maybe we should call it a BROKEN VOW.
Nothing Cameron says now can help Remain. It has gone beyond his control and is now in the lap of the gods.
For those interested in machinations in the Green Party, Andrew Cooper of Huddersfield/Kirklees has announced he will stand for deputy leader. Excellent track record of delivering in local government. One to watch for future leader betting, if such a book existed.
Crikey, that would mean companies working in the UK would actually have to invest in training people. They won't like that.
A bit of Bennery which I quite liked and got serious consideration under Blair before rejection was a compulsory training levy, the proceeds of which would be available to any company (or college) operating an approved training scheme, which they could open to outside trainees. So someone like Honda could make a profit from having a good engineering training scheme, while XYZ Engineering, which coudn't be bothered to give their staff any additional training could simply pay the levy and have Honda train them instead.
Lots of practical difficulties (which is why Blair rejected it, apart from his wariness of the state interfering) - need for approval, availability of local schemes, etc. But the idea that you have to give your staff training but can choose whether to do it yourself seemed essentially sound, as opposed to the current situation where companies who don't train poach staff from companies that do.
Quite. Something could be done one way or another though. Importing people to leave people on lower incomes or the dole just doesn't make sense to me.
I thought politicians were supposed to look after the electorate they had.
That's where the racism comes in.
I see. So looking after the electorate you have is racist?
Glad we've cleared that up.
Half the electorate are racist, apparently. Including LD and Labour voters. Isn't it simply awful - who knew?
Quite. And people wonder why people don't vote. Why would you if looking after the welfare of the voter is racist?
Wow! Thanks to Innocenta Broad, I've learned today that the old maxim "Charity starts at home" is racist. Have to stop teaching it to the kids.
Comments
Are we considering getting rid of that, as well as Brexit? If not, you can't play the 'racist' card, as the system is just as racist - it's just that the number of countries with whom we have a reciprocal work relationship is somewhat smaller.
Very good thread indeed. A timely dog whistle to those who read PB that Brexit wont be painless. Though Blackburn and the 3 Platos might relish the thought of cold muffins and donkey rides on Eastborne beach without a foreigner in sight many others will see it differently.
You're pointing us towards a very scary place which like all the best dog whistles wont be audible to many.
If the thought of Boris in No 10 just looks like a swap of Tories with contrasting hairstyles think of him on a hot line with Donald Trump.
If you're still not hearing it you're a UKIPer and this isn't meant for you
For those like me who have just had a coffee at their local Italian bar and don't want it to be replaced with a whelk stall leave your computers and start persuading those you know NOW.
Lots of practical difficulties (which is why Blair rejected it, apart from his wariness of the state interfering) - need for approval, availability of local schemes, etc. But the idea that you have to give your staff training but can choose whether to do it yourself seemed essentially sound, as opposed to the current situation where companies who don't train poach staff from companies that do.
I suspect that'd be unnecessary, as there's no tariff from Iceland to Turkey or anywhere in between.
In that sense our membership of the EU is a sort of buy one, pay for two deal... (We pay twice that in net contributions)
So that could makes sense.
Oddschecker has some drifting as well - now back to 5/2 as best odds.
I thought politicians were supposed to look after the electorate they had.
Number 121 in a very long list?
Pants on fire.
Boris had a big lead early in March:
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2016/03/boris-powers-into-a-double-digit-lead-in-our-next-party-leader-survey.html
But has since lost it and the latest survey of Con members has Michael Gove in the lead for the third month running:
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2016/06/gove-tops-our-next-party-leader-survey-for-the-third-month-running.html
Why not write an article putting out various possibilities instead of this sort of spurious, speculative guff? There are myriad possibilities of what might happen if we vote to leave.
The EU got £8,500,000,000 (net!) from the UK in 2015 (£17 per European)
Racist?
Second, say thank you. Third, teach them, admit your mistakes, accept that mistakes will happen and make it clear that the key thing is to learn from them.
Essentially, it's about being clear what your expectations of behaviour are and enforcing them consistently and fairly for all staff from top to bottom.
Nick and I have spoken about this before and I think Blair made an enormous mistake in dropping this idea (there was after all, years ago, a compulsory training levy in the building industry). Even Osborne, to be fair to the fool, has revived the idea in a much watered down form.
And if it is Boris in 2017 and he's forced into an election Benn would be in an ideal position to win. Particularly if things go as badly as expected after Brexit
Perhaps an analogy would help.
* There are two twin children.
* One of them is underperforming in school and is held back a year.
* After a year the child has "recovered" (scuse the scare quotes) and goes forward.
* But he has still lost that year and his twin remains a year ahead - and will remain a year ahead for the rest of the school
That's not a good example (because you age a year a year, but growth rates can vary) but it illustrates the point: returning to the status quo ante recessionis not good enough, the lost production is still lost.
The City needs to go further and drive out the firms that are institutionally bent, it could start with Goldman Sachs and work from there.
2) There'll be a period of great rejoicing.
But where there is money there is greed and stupidity so important to hire people with the right moral compass, with good judgment, who will try and do the right thing even when no-one is looking and to have these sorts of people as leaders. The City forgot this basic lesson at vast expense to it and us.
(Slight boasting here) I have made a bit of a name for myself giving talks on this subject so I could bore for hours on this topic. If I get the chance to do a talk to which outsiders are invited I will let you know.
But now I'm about to get my hair done to be even more gorgeous (
You really don't think things through do you?
In fact, thinking about it, I find practically all people (whether foreign born or not) who support Brexit quite mean spirited and selfish. I can even think of my friendship group- the Brexit lot are mostly money obsessed and more than a little bit racist. Thinking about it, they probably enjoy watching Top Gearing in the halcyon days of Clarkson too.
I would welcome the end of VAT-mess. And re-opting out of the Social Chapter. But what else is there? I'm a small business person many times over (CrowdScores, PythonAnywhere, THS Partners, Genius Sports Group), and I must confess that - other than in the case of VAT-mess - I simply haven't run up against EU regulations in any of my businesses*.
* Requirements for data to reside in the EU may change that down the line.
My point is just this: there are so so so many possible ways the cookie could crumble on a Brexit.
Glad we've cleared that up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum#/media/File:UK_EU_referendum_polling.svg
and now Ladbrokes saying more money going on Leave than Remain, one wonders whether we have hit CROSSOVER, with the undecideds falling away in Leave's favour , and Leave on the incline overall , Remain on the decline, if this can be sustained over the next three weeks , we could be heading for a narrow Leave win. However, I'm sure a "Vow" will be produced to twist arms before the big vote.
Picking winners easier than finding cars behind doors...
So maybe we should call it a BROKEN VOW.
Nothing Cameron says now can help Remain. It has gone beyond his control and is now in the lap of the gods.
Anyone who wouldn't be friends with someone holding an alternative political view is just weird. And rather totalitarian.