The classic mistake here is that the primary purpose of the welfare state is the recipient, rather than ensuring the middle classes don't have to endure an unsafe, crime ridden, Hogarthian hell hole. There is a reason the rich people of Johannesburg or Lagos or any number of other places across continents live in gated communities behind razor wire. There is a reason that 'the poor' were considered every bit as much of a problem in the days of workhouses or when the Rowntree Foundation first reported. And the necessity of welfare to scale somewhat with the increasing wealth of the Western world, an idea of relative poverty, also stems from this. If we count the entire post war period, the drag that having maintained a welfare system has had on living standards is not at all obvious - welfare is part of that stable nation compact that, amongst other things, has allowed business to flourish and standards of living to rise.
But the tenor of the criticism of welfare is so often such that the whole concept of welfare is undermined. It is a 'system', it will always have small pockets of over generosity and will always be to some degree gameable - we should always look to tighten loopholes, but the only way to eliminate them totally is to eliminate the system altogether. But by thinking of welfare simply as the sum of those specific issues, you will always come to the conclusion that welfare should be tightened - there is no happy medium to be reached or else, in practice, we never reach that happy medium. Many scoff at the idea that we could ever go back to the Victorian era in terms of how the poor are viewed and treated, and to think it would happen with a single decision overnight is indeed absurd. But an anti-welfare direction of travel over 20-30 years could put enough people into that position and it is only once you get beyond the uncomplainingly vulnerable that it will become noticable, and to think that could never happen would be complacent.
As with criminal justice, the bleeding heart positions - for the poor welfare recipient, for the poor burdened taxpayer - lie at both end of the spectrum, with proponents of the latter entirely oblivious to the fact that they are every bit as much bleeding hearts as their polar opposites. The true hard headed position is somewhere in the centre.
That may be short on specifics, no apologies for that, but I feel this is a debate where the intellectual basis for having welfare in the first place has got lost in the mists of time, and we should at least refer back to that start point when we assess where policy is now.
Pound now dropping again 1.13 acc to Google.. if people have not noticed. .. see previous thread..... they bloo ming well will do soon. Hire car last yr 100 pounds this yr 123.89. Some will carry on blissfully ignorant of the effect of the falling pound.. the pound in your pocket will be affected...
Inflation is currently far too low so how will people notice? Even if inflation rose as high as 3.4% that'd be no further away from target than we have now.
Pound now dropping again 1.13 acc to Google.. if people have not noticed. .. see previous thread..... they bloo ming well will do soon. Hire car last yr 100 pounds this yr 123.89. Some will carry on blissfully ignorant of the effect of the falling pound.. the pound in your pocket will be affected...
Have to say it worries me as an occasional visitor to the US. Our first trip to Vegas at $2.05 to the £ we lived extremely well. Even at $1.50 it's not too bad. Now at sub $1.30 I'm going to have do some serious winning at the casinos to keep Mrs Stodge in the style to which she becomes accustomed on holidays.
Pound now dropping again 1.13 acc to Google.. if people have not noticed. .. see previous thread..... they bloo ming well will do soon. Hire car last yr 100 pounds this yr 123.89. Some will carry on blissfully ignorant of the effect of the falling pound.. the pound in your pocket will be affected...
Its OK, the Brexiteers don't travel abroad or buy from abroad so they'll be fine. In fact you are being unpatriotic and a scoundrel by holidaying abroad. Watch our for naming shaming of your type.
They will not be fine.. imports will be a lot more expensive and prices will rise.. the Bank of Englandcannot effectively support the pound... those days are long gone.
Unfortunately Miliband is spot on. Corbyn, the UKIP comedy show, the hard-Brexit orthodoxy consuming the party - it was all going so well for the Tories. But I'm sensing they've overreached themselves. The Tories clearly believe they are invincible at present - a foolish and dangerous presumption. Rudd's dark pronouncements will unite the forces of liberalism like nothing we've seen in recent decades. Rudd may have wrecked it.
Do we want to hire someone at £25k and train them, or take advantage of someone else having trained them, and poach them for £35k after a year? The company that takes the second option will be more profitable, and likely put the first out of business.
What his new employer paid him was presumably the market rate for his skills otherwise they would not be offering it, would it not have been the case that if you had offered him the same rate you would have retained him ?
Absolutely. Imagine this simplified view of the world:
Salary Training Output Benefit to Company Year 1 25000 15000 20000 -20000 Year 2 30000 0 40000 10000
Total -10000
Salary Training Output Benefit to Company Year 1 35000 0 40000 5000 Year 2 35000 0 40000 5000
Total 10000
In the first instance you hire somebody and train them up. To make a positive return on the training investment, you need to pay them sub-market rates for a period to make up for the time they were losing you money.
No you don't you give him a contract that states that to take this training course you need to pay back £x,000 if you leave in the next y months. You then pay him appropriately and increase his pay to the market rate as that course is paid off.
Heck even bus companies do that to trainees....
I agree that something like that will need to be done. But historically, it's not been the case in the technology or service sectors.
It's also less clear cut in tech as there will be a lot of 'on the job' type training (experienced programmers reviewing code and suggesting improvements / clarifying house approach etc.) which costs time/money, but isn't just 'this training course cost £X'
Get them looking for security holes in your stuff after they leave in return for bug bounties. That way the time you've spent teaching them how it works doesn't go to waste and you benefit from the stuff they learn in their next job too.
A lot of tech companies offer staff options with longish vesting periods which stops them bugging off right away, I was in the interesting position working as a contractor for one "very large database company" of parking my year old middle of the road Audi A4 in a carpark full of M3s and other nutter cars because all the developers had just cashed in a tranche of options, was definitely the poor relation there!
@PolhomeEditor: Leaders of SNP, Plaid and Greens jointly condemn "the most toxic rhetoric on immigration seen from any government in living memory". #CPC16
A search party has been sent out for the Labour leader...
Oh well....my good feeling to May has lasted all of 12 hours.
What the hell is she thinking of playing the populist card? And Rudd? The stuff on foreigners is appalling, terrible, shocking. This isn't the UK that I know and grew up in. Pandering to the lowest common denominator bullshit. Do they know what the impact of this kind of language has on people like my wife, someone who has worked and contributed to the UK for over 20 years. She feels hated.
Gordon Brown showed us the pitfalls of going down the populist route. Shame on Theresa May...instead of showing leadership she is creating division, hatred and anger. Well done her.
If one was looking to make an argument, one could suggest that the so called liberal elite, the AB metropolitans and Guardianista are even more incandescent than usual at the moment, not just because the masses voted against staying the EU, a touchstone of their faith, but in that act they made politicians remember there were more people in the country what the noisy chattering classes.
The upper middle class, the media, the City and the upper echelons of the public sector have had two decades of being shameless pandered to, first by Blair and then by Cameron, they have grown up, or grown old being used to politicians giving them what they want, or at least sounding as if they wanted to give them what they want, and now all of a sudden the politicians are starting to notice that they have been holding that conversation with a relatively small section of the population, and that large, forgotten sections of the country are starting to get restless at the inattention.
Maybe some people sitting behind their morning Guardian are starting to get a bit nervous, they fear with some justification that politicians are starting to look at the country a bit more broadly, and that their interests might not received the attention that they are used to. Historically they would have looked for a Blair or a Clegg in the other parties to listen to them, but all they can see is navel gazing and irrelevance, and they begin to wonder if the barbarians are at the door.
May is targeting Sun and Mail rather than Times and Guardian readers
I think that is what I said, and hence the Guardian readers think the barbarians are at the door.
There are multiple Conservative members and activists who feel uneasy about this idea of naming and shaming, hardly Guardian readers.
I think it's just companies that don't look for UK workers - there was a case last year that hired a Warsaw based agency and advertised in Polish only. When they were prosecuted they claimed it was a safety issue as Polish was the first language for most of their employees. That sort of arrangement isn't on.
Indeed. I'm surprised that PB has hopped on the outrage bus about this.
Sadly, some PB people are less concerned about the welfare of their fellow citizens and worry more about the welfare of citizens from outside the UK.
Pound now dropping again 1.13 acc to Google.. if people have not noticed. .. see previous thread..... they bloo ming well will do soon. Hire car last yr 100 pounds this yr 123.89. Some will carry on blissfully ignorant of the effect of the falling pound.. the pound in your pocket will be affected...
Its OK, the Brexiteers don't travel abroad or buy from abroad so they'll be fine. In fact you are being unpatriotic and a scoundrel by holidaying abroad. Watch our for naming shaming of your type.
They will not be fine.. imports will be a lot more expensive and prices will rise.. the Bank of Englandcannot effectively support the pound... those days are long gone.
How high are you projecting inflation will rise to compared to our 2% target?
Are we going to see 10% inflation? 20%? What do you think?
'People who go into the media — the people who go into the BBC — are, in general, of that kind of centre-Left stamp. I think it might even be a good thing if the BBC admitted it was a bit centre-Left and had the odd programme [to balance it out]. If, just like it has Woman's Hour, it had a Right-Wing Hour.
Do we want to hire someone at £25k and train them, or take advantage of someone else having trained them, and poach them for £35k after a year? The company that takes the second option will be more profitable, and likely put the first out of business.
What his new employer paid him was presumably the market rate for his skills otherwise they would not be offering it, would it not have been the case that if you had offered him the same rate you would have retained him ?
Absolutely. Imagine this simplified view of the world:
Salary Training Output Benefit to Company Year 1 25000 15000 20000 -20000 Year 2 30000 0 40000 10000
Total -10000
Salary Training Output Benefit to Company Year 1 35000 0 40000 5000 Year 2 35000 0 40000 5000
Total 10000
In the first instance you hire somebody and train them up. To make a positive return on the training investment, you need to pay them sub-market rates for a period to make up for the time they were losing you money.
No you don't you give him a contract that states that to take this training course you need to pay back £x,000 if you leave in the next y months. You then pay him appropriately and increase his pay to the market rate as that course is paid off.
Heck even bus companies do that to trainees....
I agree that something like that will need to be done. But historically, it's not been the case in the technology or service sectors.
When my friend became a trainee pilot for BA he had to go to a bank and take out a loan over three years to cover his training costs which he gave to BA, they then undertook to shoulder the monthly repayments on the loan for as long as he was their employee, should he leave before the loan was repaid the cost of repaying the loan reverted to him personally. Seemed like a sensible way to handle things.
Would he have been responsible for the costs if he'd been made redundant?
Ironically he was and he wasnt, so to speak. When he completed his training they didnt have a job for him, so he was let off his loan and went and worked for another airline. If he had been sacked I think he would have had to pick up the tab, such as if he had been convicted of drink driving which was a condition for instant dismissal in his contract.
Thank you - it would have been helpful to supply the LSE Link in the first place, rather than the mis-reported Huffington Post one.
Interesting study.
The reporting of The Daily Mirror is most balanced with almost 60% of its news articles about Corbyn using sources from both the pro- and anti-Corbyn camps, similarly and more surprisingly The Daily Mail and The Daily Express also have a high degree of balanced reporting,
But I do think the authors need to find a 'safe space'.....they treat news as if its all serious, and jokes about Corbyn are all attacks - who knows, he might have enjoyed 'The Sexpot Trot'.....
My first link was that one along with 2 others.
Anyway glad we all agree the LSE found Corbyn misrepresented 75% of the time
Surprisingly The Mail,Express,Sun did not report these findings
(1) How does that compare to other politicians? (2) The authors appear to believe (if accurately reported) that the media should have given him a free ride. Why?
As with all media analysis there is inevitably subjectivity over what counts as legitimate criticism and what is not. They seem to get particularly upset about papers bringing up Corbyn's dealings with terrorists.
That may be short on specifics, no apologies for that, but I feel this is a debate where the intellectual basis for having welfare in the first place has got lost in the mists of time, and we should at least refer back to that start point when we assess where policy is now.
I dont disagree with any of that, but it reinforces the suggestion that you can only have one of open borders or a functioning welfare system. We should have a welfare system that is sufficiently generous, but it doesnt work if unlimited people can arrive and work at a rate which would be unacceptable to local people, thereby displacing them onto the welfare bill whilst claiming on the welfare bill themselves to avoid the victorian conditions you mention.
Sadly, some PB people are less concerned about the welfare of their fellow citizens and worry more about the welfare of citizens from outside the UK.
Rubbish, I think telling people who will have been in this country for a minimum of 9 years to bugger off in 2025 is completely wrong. Shaming companies who do nothing outside of the law is wrong. Firefighting against the symptoms and increasing the size and reach of government is not the Tory way. We must look at the cause of why companies are so ready to hire foreign workers, we need root and branch reform of our education sector and for universities to stop buggering about with safe spaces and get back to helping students obtaining excellence.
I find Rudd entirely misses the point, which is that companies hire foreign workers often because British ones either don't want the jobs or are the weaker candidates. These weaker British candidates are the product of living and being educated in the UK, and their weakness is largely the responsibility of successive governments including ones that Rudd (and May and many others in the party) were part of. To get companies to actively favour weaker candidates is not meritocratic - Tories wouldn't approve of it if it were positive discrimination on the basis of sex or ethnic background, and it is effectively the same thing.
Indeed but it's not simply the government's fault. The problem with FOM has always been that business has seen it as a way to recruit without having to to bother with investment in skills for their industry.
There was a thread on here a while back on tech recruitment in the City and it was clear people just do not get it.
It's a bit more complicated than that. Let me give you an example of a company I'm involved in. About five years ago, we hired a fabulous (British) guy who showed real natural programming ability, but who'd been in prison, and so nobody wanted to hire him. He was trained up, which took a lot of time from senior programmers, and then once he'd been trained and rehabilitated by having spend 18 months in a job, he left for more money. It was undoubtedly a massively positive investment for him, and massively negative for us as a company.
Do we want to hire someone at £25k and train them, or take advantage of someone else having trained them, and poach them for £35k after a year? The company that takes the second option will be more profitable, and likely put the first out of business.
The problem is that many people leave university without the right skills. Businesses need to be incentivised to train people up, otherwise they will always prefer to poach, or to hire foreigners with the right skills.
Lots of interesting comment on this, glad about that as this really is the crux of a lot of our problems.
One thing I would add is while a poached trainee may immediately be a loss, developing an ever more skilled pool of workers to poach is also In a business' interest.
Thank you - it would have been helpful to supply the LSE Link in the first place, rather than the mis-reported Huffington Post one.
Interesting study.
The reporting of The Daily Mirror is most balanced with almost 60% of its news articles about Corbyn using sources from both the pro- and anti-Corbyn camps, similarly and more surprisingly The Daily Mail and The Daily Express also have a high degree of balanced reporting,
But I do think the authors need to find a 'safe space'.....they treat news as if its all serious, and jokes about Corbyn are all attacks - who knows, he might have enjoyed 'The Sexpot Trot'.....
Anyway glad we all agree the LSE found Corbyn misrepresented 75% of the time
I think that Corbyn should be portrayed as an unpatriotic dangerous socialist who does not have the best interests of the working class as an objective. That is not how the BBC, C4, Sky, Itv, Guardian, Indie and Mirror portray him.
Thank you - it would have been helpful to supply the LSE Link in the first place, rather than the mis-reported Huffington Post one.
Interesting study.
The reporting of The Daily Mirror is most balanced with almost 60% of its news articles about Corbyn using sources from both the pro- and anti-Corbyn camps, similarly and more surprisingly The Daily Mail and The Daily Express also have a high degree of balanced reporting,
But I do think the authors need to find a 'safe space'.....they treat news as if its all serious, and jokes about Corbyn are all attacks - who knows, he might have enjoyed 'The Sexpot Trot'.....
My first link was that one along with 2 others.
Anyway glad we all agree the LSE found Corbyn misrepresented 75% of the time
You posted two independent links...anyroad up, interesting study, but not (inevitably) without its flaws...
Thank you - it would have been helpful to supply the LSE Link in the first place, rather than the mis-reported Huffington Post one.
Interesting study.
The reporting of The Daily Mirror is most balanced with almost 60% of its news articles about Corbyn using sources from both the pro- and anti-Corbyn camps, similarly and more surprisingly The Daily Mail and The Daily Express also have a high degree of balanced reporting,
But I do think the authors need to find a 'safe space'.....they treat news as if its all serious, and jokes about Corbyn are all attacks - who knows, he might have enjoyed 'The Sexpot Trot'.....
Anyway glad we all agree the LSE found Corbyn misrepresented 75% of the time
I think that Corbyn should be portrayed as an unpatriotic dangerous socialist who does not have the best interests of the working class as an objective. That is not how the BBC, C4, Sky, Itv, Guardian, Indie and Mirror portray him.
But that's not what the LSE thinks you see, therefore, you are biased.
Sadly, some PB people are less concerned about the welfare of their fellow citizens and worry more about the welfare of citizens from outside the UK.
Rubbish, I think telling people who will have been in this country for a minimum of 9 years to bugger off in 2025 is completely wrong. Shaming companies who do nothing outside of the law is wrong. Firefighting against the symptoms and increasing the size and reach of government is not the Tory way. We must look at the cause of why companies are so ready to hire foreign workers, we need root and branch reform of our education sector and for universities to stop buggering about with safe spaces and get back to helping students obtaining excellence.
People who have been here 5 years will have Indefinite Leave To Remain, that is they will be Permanent Residents. If they haven't been bothered to convert their status I am not sure we should be excessively sympathetic.
It's a bit more complicated than that. Let me give you an example of a company I'm involved in. About five years ago, we hired a fabulous (British) guy who showed real natural programming ability, but who'd been in prison, and so nobody wanted to hire him. He was trained up, which took a lot of time from senior programmers, and then once he'd been trained and rehabilitated by having spend 18 months in a job, he left for more money. It was undoubtedly a massively positive investment for him, and massively negative for us as a company.
Do we want to hire someone at £25k and train them, or take advantage of someone else having trained them, and poach them for £35k after a year? The company that takes the second option will be more profitable, and likely put the first out of business.
The problem is that many people leave university without the right skills. Businesses need to be incentivised to train people up, otherwise they will always prefer to poach, or to hire foreigners with the right skills.
How about handcuff clauses in training contracts, if they leave within x years the company they go to will have to pay out for 75% of the training costs? That would discourage talent poaching and force companies to train their own staff.
This Tory conference is not going very well. The £ takes a knock with every speech. Fortunately UKIP is there to do worse.
So far, against the odds, Labour has had the best conference season.
I don't see that. Labour has voted itself into Lib Dem-like irrelevance. That's why the Tories heading right is so important and concerns people. They will definitely be in government for the next 9 years.
Sadly, some PB people are less concerned about the welfare of their fellow citizens and worry more about the welfare of citizens from outside the UK.
Rubbish, I think telling people who will have been in this country for a minimum of 9 years to bugger off in 2025 is completely wrong. Shaming companies who do nothing outside of the law is wrong. Firefighting against the symptoms and increasing the size and reach of government is not the Tory way. We must look at the cause of why companies are so ready to hire foreign workers, we need root and branch reform of our education sector and for universities to stop buggering about with safe spaces and get back to helping students obtaining excellence.
People who have been here 5 years will have Indefinite Leave To Remain, that is they will be Permanent Residents. If they haven't been bothered to convert their status I am not sure we should be excessively sympathetic.
OK, so somone who arrives in 2021 gets told to bugger off in 2025? Despite having worked for the last four years and paying into our system?
Thank you - it would have been helpful to supply the LSE Link in the first place, rather than the mis-reported Huffington Post one.
Interesting study.
The reporting of The Daily Mirror is most balanced with almost 60% of its news articles about Corbyn using sources from both the pro- and anti-Corbyn camps, similarly and more surprisingly The Daily Mail and The Daily Express also have a high degree of balanced reporting,
But I do think the authors need to find a 'safe space'.....they treat news as if its all serious, and jokes about Corbyn are all attacks - who knows, he might have enjoyed 'The Sexpot Trot'.....
My first link was that one along with 2 others.
Anyway glad we all agree the LSE found Corbyn misrepresented 75% of the time
You posted two independent links...anyroad up, interesting study, but not (inevitably) without its flaws...
If you cant find the LSE report in my first link you should seek help rather than try throwing Red Herrings. Apparently thats the only colour available should Jezza have his way
Or maybe apply for a job at the 0% positive article Express!!
Why are we all getting so het up by a journalist in a leftwing paper inventing a phrase that wasn't actually used?
Because various industry worthies used precisely that word describing the speech. Listen to Nick Robinson's 8.10 interview with her this morning.
"Industry worthies", so actually not her. Glad we sorted that out.
"Why are we all getting so het up by a journalist in a leftwing paper inventing a phrase that wasn't actually used?"
That was your question. I gave you the answer.
Yes, thanks for clarifying that there is no good reason.
Don't tell me guv'nor. Let the media at large know that they shouldn't get het up. But oh, too late. They are het up. That's how it works, you know.
If people who have lived here for 20 years are feeling hated because journalists are inventing phrases that politicians haven't used, those journalists need to take a long hard look at themselves.
In the long run, of course, it's utterly counterproductive. The Leave vote was due in part to people feeling that every time their legitimate concerns are even approached by a politician, let alone actually addressed, they get shot down with apocalyptic language.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to work (~50% British, last hire British, we never advertise abroad).
Sadly, some PB people are less concerned about the welfare of their fellow citizens and worry more about the welfare of citizens from outside the UK.
Rubbish, I think telling people who will have been in this country for a minimum of 9 years to bugger off in 2025 is completely wrong. Shaming companies who do nothing outside of the law is wrong. Firefighting against the symptoms and increasing the size and reach of government is not the Tory way. We must look at the cause of why companies are so ready to hire foreign workers, we need root and branch reform of our education sector and for universities to stop buggering about with safe spaces and get back to helping students obtaining excellence.
People who have been here 5 years will have Indefinite Leave To Remain, that is they will be Permanent Residents. If they haven't been bothered to convert their status I am not sure we should be excessively sympathetic.
OK, so somone who arrives in 2021 gets told to bugger off in 2025? Despite having worked and for the last four years and paying into our system?
They would be coming in after the referendum vote so they would know a high chance of having to leave is. I have worked in other countries knowing that I probably would have to eventually leave. It is the norm in other countries outside the EU.
Sadly, some PB people are less concerned about the welfare of their fellow citizens and worry more about the welfare of citizens from outside the UK.
Rubbish, I think telling people who will have been in this country for a minimum of 9 years to bugger off in 2025 is completely wrong. Shaming companies who do nothing outside of the law is wrong. Firefighting against the symptoms and increasing the size and reach of government is not the Tory way. We must look at the cause of why companies are so ready to hire foreign workers, we need root and branch reform of our education sector and for universities to stop buggering about with safe spaces and get back to helping students obtaining excellence.
People who have been here 5 years will have Indefinite Leave To Remain, that is they will be Permanent Residents. If they haven't been bothered to convert their status I am not sure we should be excessively sympathetic.
OK, so somone who arrives in 2021 gets told to bugger off in 2025? Despite having worked and for the last four years and paying into our system?
That's not exactly unusual internationally speaking. What happens in the USA when your H1B expires ? Almost every country in the world will kick out temporary residents when their visa expires if they have not been there long enough to convert to permanent residency status.
Sadly, some PB people are less concerned about the welfare of their fellow citizens and worry more about the welfare of citizens from outside the UK.
Rubbish, I think telling people who will have been in this country for a minimum of 9 years to bugger off in 2025 is completely wrong. Shaming companies who do nothing outside of the law is wrong. Firefighting against the symptoms and increasing the size and reach of government is not the Tory way. We must look at the cause of why companies are so ready to hire foreign workers, we need root and branch reform of our education sector and for universities to stop buggering about with safe spaces and get back to helping students obtaining excellence.
People who have been here 5 years will have Indefinite Leave To Remain, that is they will be Permanent Residents. If they haven't been bothered to convert their status I am not sure we should be excessively sympathetic.
OK, so somone who arrives in 2021 gets told to bugger off in 2025? Despite having worked and for the last four years and paying into our system?
I'd be fairly confident that we'd have a system that meant people paying in and doing a valuable job wouldn't be kicked out. I'm sure a lot of this rhetoric is just kite flying and bluster. Kicking a large group of people out who are making a sizeable net contribution is mad and surely not going to end up as Government policy. No matter what's being said at conference.
May's great achievement may well be to save the Labour party.
Not if they keep up with the poster (downthread) about Cons' failed immigration pledges, it won't.
A Tory turn to the right is much more likely to lead to Corbyn's demise. A lot of soft-Corbynistas will be wondering where the Labour leadership's response is to what has been happening at the Tory conference. Jeremy is currently at a radical film festival in the North West, and will be heading to the Stop the War event in London on Saturday. The Tories, meanwhile, have upped the stakes.
Sadly, some PB people are less concerned about the welfare of their fellow citizens and worry more about the welfare of citizens from outside the UK.
Rubbish, I think telling people who will have been in this country for a minimum of 9 years to bugger off in 2025 is completely wrong. Shaming companies who do nothing outside of the law is wrong. Firefighting against the symptoms and increasing the size and reach of government is not the Tory way. We must look at the cause of why companies are so ready to hire foreign workers, we need root and branch reform of our education sector and for universities to stop buggering about with safe spaces and get back to helping students obtaining excellence.
People who have been here 5 years will have Indefinite Leave To Remain, that is they will be Permanent Residents. If they haven't been bothered to convert their status I am not sure we should be excessively sympathetic.
OK, so somone who arrives in 2021 gets told to bugger off in 2025? Despite having worked and for the last four years and paying into our system?
Other countries have time limited work permits - what's wrong with that? The key issue is clarity - if you know up front the contract is for 4 years you can plan accordingly.
Presumably while 'paying into the system' they've also been able to avail of the services the system provides?
Sadly, some PB people are less concerned about the welfare of their fellow citizens and worry more about the welfare of citizens from outside the UK.
Rubbish, I think telling people who will have been in this country for a minimum of 9 years to bugger off in 2025 is completely wrong. Shaming companies who do nothing outside of the law is wrong. Firefighting against the symptoms and increasing the size and reach of government is not the Tory way. We must look at the cause of why companies are so ready to hire foreign workers, we need root and branch reform of our education sector and for universities to stop buggering about with safe spaces and get back to helping students obtaining excellence.
People who have been here 5 years will have Indefinite Leave To Remain, that is they will be Permanent Residents. If they haven't been bothered to convert their status I am not sure we should be excessively sympathetic.
OK, so somone who arrives in 2021 gets told to bugger off in 2025? Despite having worked and for the last four years and paying into our system?
That's not exactly unusual internationally speaking. What happens in the USA when your H1B expires ? Almost every country in the world will kick out temporary residents when their visa expires if they have not been there long enough to convert to permanent residency status.
Oh I know, tier 2 visas don't get renewed all the time, a friend of mine almost got deported to the US a few years ago! I think the difference is targeting foreign doctors, an area where we have a permanent shortage of staff. Sending highly skilled people back on the basis of meeting a migrant quota seems a little bit mad to me, and not very conservative.
May's great achievement may well be to save the Labour party.
Not if they keep up with the poster (downthread) about Cons' failed immigration pledges, it won't.
A Tory turn to the right is much more likely to lead to Corbyn's demise. A lot of soft-Corbynistas will be wondering where the Labour leadership's response is to what has been happening at the Tory conference. Jeremy is currently at a radical film festival in the North West, and will be heading to the Stop the War event in London on Saturday. The Tories, meanwhile, have upped the stakes.
Mostly people will wait and see what actually happens rather than take what is doled out to the party faithful at face value
Do we want to hire someone at £25k and train them, or take advantage of someone else having trained them, and poach them for £35k after a year? The company that takes the second option will be more profitable, and likely put the first out of business.
What his new employer paid him was presumably the market rate for his skills otherwise they would not be offering it, would it not have been the case that if you had offered him the same rate you would have retained him ?
Absolutely. Imagine this simplified view of the world:
Salary Training Output Benefit to Company Year 1 25000 15000 20000 -20000 Year 2 30000 0 40000 10000
Total -10000
Salary Training Output Benefit to Company Year 1 35000 0 40000 5000 Year 2 35000 0 40000 5000
Total 10000
In the first instance you hire somebody and train them up. To make a positive return on the training investment, you need to pay them sub-market rates for a period to make up for the time they were losing you money.
No you don't you give him a contract that states that to take this training course you need to pay back £x,000 if you leave in the next y months. You then pay him appropriately and increase his pay to the market rate as that course is paid off.
Heck even bus companies do that to trainees....
I agree that something like that will need to be done. But historically, it's not been the case in the technology or service sectors.
It's also less clear cut in tech as there will be a lot of 'on the job' type training (experienced programmers reviewing code and suggesting improvements / clarifying house approach etc.) which costs time/money, but isn't just 'this training course cost £X'
Sorry but that is just the cost of developing a complex system. You review code to make sure things work correctly (software is not as simple as a welded pipe which can be shown to be fine once you throw water down it.).
The expensive part of a software system is a bug discovered late on. Focussing on finding issues early saves money over the long run - heck there are consultancies who will happily sell you 2 developers at large sums a day to pair program as they can show that bugs found early are far cheap than bugs discovered later.
We're big fans of Extreme Programming and obeying the testing goat
Sadly, some PB people are less concerned about the welfare of their fellow citizens and worry more about the welfare of citizens from outside the UK.
Rubbish, I think telling people who will have been in this country for a minimum of 9 years to bugger off in 2025 is completely wrong. Shaming companies who do nothing outside of the law is wrong. Firefighting against the symptoms and increasing the size and reach of government is not the Tory way. We must look at the cause of why companies are so ready to hire foreign workers, we need root and branch reform of our education sector and for universities to stop buggering about with safe spaces and get back to helping students obtaining excellence.
I refer you to that airplane cleaning company example I quoted elsewhere on here and its practice of hiring spanish workers (also Charles and the polish workers). Education is not the grounds on who they hire to clean inside planes. Research has found (quoted on BBC) that >80% (I recall 85%) of EU workers that came in last year are unskilled and would not meet the criteria that non-EU workers have to achieve.
Sadly, some PB people are less concerned about the welfare of their fellow citizens and worry more about the welfare of citizens from outside the UK.
Rubbish, I think telling people who will have been in this country for a minimum of 9 years to bugger off in 2025 is completely wrong. Shaming companies who do nothing outside of the law is wrong. Firefighting against the symptoms and increasing the size and reach of government is not the Tory way. We must look at the cause of why companies are so ready to hire foreign workers, we need root and branch reform of our education sector and for universities to stop buggering about with safe spaces and get back to helping students obtaining excellence.
People who have been here 5 years will have Indefinite Leave To Remain, that is they will be Permanent Residents. If they haven't been bothered to convert their status I am not sure we should be excessively sympathetic.
OK, so somone who arrives in 2021 gets told to bugger off in 2025? Despite having worked and for the last four years and paying into our system?
That's not exactly unusual internationally speaking. What happens in the USA when your H1B expires ? Almost every country in the world will kick out temporary residents when their visa expires if they have not been there long enough to convert to permanent residency status.
Oh I know, tier 2 visas don't get renewed all the time, a friend of mine almost got deported to the US a few years ago! I think the difference is targeting foreign doctors, an area where we have a permanent shortage of staff. Sending highly skilled people back on the basis of meeting a migrant quota seems a little bit mad to me, and not very conservative.
and almost certainly wont happen. In fantasy land where we train massive numbers of new doctors that dont immediately bugger off to Australia maybe, but in reality they will get their visa extended as they are still a shortage skill.
I have spent most of the last two decades working around Asia on and off, and never had the expectation that I would get my visa extended. Sometime I did, sometimes I didn't. If you don't move on, find somewhere else to work
Thank you - it would have been helpful to supply the LSE Link in the first place, rather than the mis-reported Huffington Post one.
Interesting study.
But I do think the authors need to find a 'safe space'.....they treat news as if its all serious, and jokes about Corbyn are all attacks - who knows, he might have enjoyed 'The Sexpot Trot'.....
My first link was that one along with 2 others.
Anyway glad we all agree the LSE found Corbyn misrepresented 75% of the time
You posted two independent links...anyroad up, interesting study, but not (inevitably) without its flaws...
If you cant find the LSE report in my first link you should seek help rather than try throwing Red Herrings. Apparently thats the only colour available should Jezza have his way
Or maybe apply for a job at the 0% positive article Express!!
So its my job to trawl through links because you're too lazy to post the correct one?
I think you mean the balanced Express:
The Daily Mail and The Daily Express also have a high degree of balanced reporting, mixing pro and anti-Corbyn sources in its news reporting about Corbyn (respectively 43% and 49% of news articles)
Sadly, some PB people are less concerned about the welfare of their fellow citizens and worry more about the welfare of citizens from outside the UK.
Rubbish, I think telling people who will have been in this country for a minimum of 9 years to bugger off in 2025 is completely wrong. Shaming companies who do nothing outside of the law is wrong. Firefighting against the symptoms and increasing the size and reach of government is not the Tory way. We must look at the cause of why companies are so ready to hire foreign workers, we need root and branch reform of our education sector and for universities to stop buggering about with safe spaces and get back to helping students obtaining excellence.
I refer you to that airplane cleaning company example I quoted elsewhere on here and its practice of hiring spanish workers (also Charles and the polish workers). Education is not the grounds on who they hire to clean inside planes. Research has found (quoted on BBC) that >80% (I recall 85%) of EU workers that came in last year are unskilled and would not meet the criteria that non-EU workers have to achieve.
So let's figure out a way to make these jobs more attractive to British people. It means solving the fundamental problems of low wages and high living costs. Not just firefighting.
Sadly, some PB people are less concerned about the welfare of their fellow citizens and worry more about the welfare of citizens from outside the UK.
Rubbish, I think telling people who will have been in this country for a minimum of 9 years to bugger off in 2025 is completely wrong. Shaming companies who do nothing outside of the law is wrong. Firefighting against the symptoms and increasing the size and reach of government is not the Tory way. We must look at the cause of why companies are so ready to hire foreign workers, we need root and branch reform of our education sector and for universities to stop buggering about with safe spaces and get back to helping students obtaining excellence.
I refer you to that airplane cleaning company example I quoted elsewhere on here and its practice of hiring spanish workers (also Charles and the polish workers). Education is not the grounds on who they hire to clean inside planes. Research has found (quoted on BBC) that >80% (I recall 85%) of EU workers that came in last year are unskilled and would not meet the criteria that non-EU workers have to achieve.
So let's figure out a way to make these jobs more attractive to British people. It means solving the fundamental problems of low wages and high living costs. Not just firefighting.
Yes, pay more to Waiters and make the menu prices more expensive. Then fewer people go to Restaurants. Easy !
Sadly, some PB people are less concerned about the welfare of their fellow citizens and worry more about the welfare of citizens from outside the UK.
Rubbish, I think telling people who will have been in this country for a minimum of 9 years to bugger off in 2025 is completely wrong. Shaming companies who do nothing outside of the law is wrong. Firefighting against the symptoms and increasing the size and reach of government is not the Tory way. We must look at the cause of why companies are so ready to hire foreign workers, we need root and branch reform of our education sector and for universities to stop buggering about with safe spaces and get back to helping students obtaining excellence.
I refer you to that airplane cleaning company example I quoted elsewhere on here and its practice of hiring spanish workers (also Charles and the polish workers). Education is not the grounds on who they hire to clean inside planes. Research has found (quoted on BBC) that >80% (I recall 85%) of EU workers that came in last year are unskilled and would not meet the criteria that non-EU workers have to achieve.
So let's figure out a way to make these jobs more attractive to British people. It means solving the fundamental problems of low wages and high living costs. Not just firefighting.
Doesnt make any difference if the competition is happy to accept a lower standard of living they will always outcompete you.
Sadly, some PB people are less concerned about the welfare of their fellow citizens and worry more about the welfare of citizens from outside the UK.
Rubbish, I think telling people who will have been in this country for a minimum of 9 years to bugger off in 2025 is completely wrong. Shaming companies who do nothing outside of the law is wrong. Firefighting against the symptoms and increasing the size and reach of government is not the Tory way. We must look at the cause of why companies are so ready to hire foreign workers, we need root and branch reform of our education sector and for universities to stop buggering about with safe spaces and get back to helping students obtaining excellence.
I refer you to that airplane cleaning company example I quoted elsewhere on here and its practice of hiring spanish workers (also Charles and the polish workers). Education is not the grounds on who they hire to clean inside planes. Research has found (quoted on BBC) that >80% (I recall 85%) of EU workers that came in last year are unskilled and would not meet the criteria that non-EU workers have to achieve.
So let's figure out a way to make these jobs more attractive to British people. It means solving the fundamental problems of low wages and high living costs. Not just firefighting.
We could slash our benefit system to be as miserly as those nations that the migrants are coming from. Do you want to do that?
Thank you - it would have been helpful to supply the LSE Link in the first place, rather than the mis-reported Huffington Post one.
Interesting study.
But I do think the authors need to find a 'safe space'.....they treat news as if its all serious, and jokes about Corbyn are all attacks - who knows, he might have enjoyed 'The Sexpot Trot'.....
My first link was that one along with 2 others.
Anyway glad we all agree the LSE found Corbyn misrepresented 75% of the time
You posted two independent links...anyroad up, interesting study, but not (inevitably) without its flaws...
If you cant find the LSE report in my first link you should seek help rather than try throwing Red Herrings. Apparently thats the only colour available should Jezza have his way
Or maybe apply for a job at the 0% positive article Express!!
So its my job to trawl through links because you're too lazy to post the correct one?
I think you mean the balanced Express:
The Daily Mail and The Daily Express also have a high degree of balanced reporting, mixing pro and anti-Corbyn sources in its news reporting about Corbyn (respectively 43% and 49% of news articles)
Unfortunately Miliband is spot on. Corbyn, the UKIP comedy show, the hard-Brexit orthodoxy consuming the party - it was all going so well for the Tories. But I'm sensing they've overreached themselves. The Tories clearly believe they are invincible at present - a foolish and dangerous presumption. Rudd's dark pronouncements will unite the forces of liberalism like nothing we've seen in recent decades. Rudd may have wrecked it.
Sadly, some PB people are less concerned about the welfare of their fellow citizens and worry more about the welfare of citizens from outside the UK.
Rubbish, I think telling people who will have been in this country for a minimum of 9 years to bugger off in 2025 is completely wrong. Shaming companies who do nothing outside of the law is wrong. Firefighting against the symptoms and increasing the size and reach of government is not the Tory way. We must look at the cause of why companies are so ready to hire foreign workers, we need root and branch reform of our education sector and for universities to stop buggering about with safe spaces and get back to helping students obtaining excellence.
I refer you to that airplane cleaning company example I quoted elsewhere on here and its practice of hiring spanish workers (also Charles and the polish workers). Education is not the grounds on who they hire to clean inside planes. Research has found (quoted on BBC) that >80% (I recall 85%) of EU workers that came in last year are unskilled and would not meet the criteria that non-EU workers have to achieve.
So let's figure out a way to make these jobs more attractive to British people. It means solving the fundamental problems of low wages and high living costs. Not just firefighting.
We could slash our benefit system to be as miserly as those nations that the migrants are coming from. Do you want to do that?
Something along those lines, at least make it contributory and eliminate housing benefits and all in working benefits. Wage subsidies are just corporate subsidies.
Sadly, some PB people are less concerned about the welfare of their fellow citizens and worry more about the welfare of citizens from outside the UK.
Rubbish, I think telling people who will have been in this country for a minimum of 9 years to bugger off in 2025 is completely wrong. Shaming companies who do nothing outside of the law is wrong. Firefighting against the symptoms and increasing the size and reach of government is not the Tory way. We must look at the cause of why companies are so ready to hire foreign workers, we need root and branch reform of our education sector and for universities to stop buggering about with safe spaces and get back to helping students obtaining excellence.
I refer you to that airplane cleaning company example I quoted elsewhere on here and its practice of hiring spanish workers (also Charles and the polish workers). Education is not the grounds on who they hire to clean inside planes. Research has found (quoted on BBC) that >80% (I recall 85%) of EU workers that came in last year are unskilled and would not meet the criteria that non-EU workers have to achieve.
So let's figure out a way to make these jobs more attractive to British people. It means solving the fundamental problems of low wages and high living costs. Not just firefighting.
Yes, pay more to Waiters and make the menu prices more expensive. Then fewer people go to Restaurants. Easy !
Those waiters will have more spending money though.
Never thought I'd be arguing about higher wages with you, surby.
Sadly, some PB people are less concerned about the welfare of their fellow citizens and worry more about the welfare of citizens from outside the UK.
Rubbish, I think telling people who will have been in this country for a minimum of 9 years to bugger off in 2025 is completely wrong. Shaming companies who do nothing outside of the law is wrong. Firefighting against the symptoms and increasing the size and reach of government is not the Tory way. We must look at the cause of why companies are so ready to hire foreign workers, we need root and branch reform of our education sector and for universities to stop buggering about with safe spaces and get back to helping students obtaining excellence.
I refer you to that airplane cleaning company example I quoted elsewhere on here and its practice of hiring spanish workers (also Charles and the polish workers). Education is not the grounds on who they hire to clean inside planes. Research has found (quoted on BBC) that >80% (I recall 85%) of EU workers that came in last year are unskilled and would not meet the criteria that non-EU workers have to achieve.
So let's figure out a way to make these jobs more attractive to British people. It means solving the fundamental problems of low wages and high living costs. Not just firefighting.
1. Advertise first in the UK. 2. Suppress benefit payment increases. 3. No benefits to foreign workers until they have worked here for 5+ years. 4. Bring in work permit charges of ideally £10,000+ pa. (Covers NHS etc costs) 5. Build >100,000 houses/flats in London each year. May then have no need for limits.
Sadly, some PB people are less concerned about the welfare of their fellow citizens and worry more about the welfare of citizens from outside the UK.
Rubbish, I think telling people who will have been in this country for a minimum of 9 years to bugger off in 2025 is completely wrong. Shaming companies who do nothing outside of the law is wrong. Firefighting against the symptoms and increasing the size and reach of government is not the Tory way. We must look at the cause of why companies are so ready to hire foreign workers, we need root and branch reform of our education sector and for universities to stop buggering about with safe spaces and get back to helping students obtaining excellence.
I refer you to that airplane cleaning company example I quoted elsewhere on here and its practice of hiring spanish workers (also Charles and the polish workers). Education is not the grounds on who they hire to clean inside planes. Research has found (quoted on BBC) that >80% (I recall 85%) of EU workers that came in last year are unskilled and would not meet the criteria that non-EU workers have to achieve.
So let's figure out a way to make these jobs more attractive to British people. It means solving the fundamental problems of low wages and high living costs. Not just firefighting.
We could slash our benefit system to be as miserly as those nations that the migrants are coming from. Do you want to do that?
Something along those lines, at least make it contributory and eliminate housing benefits and all in working benefits. Wage subsidies are just corporate subsidies.
Contributory systems would be the best ward against the use of welfare to induce workers to come here on low pay, only to have it topped up by government.
Really bothers me that Whenever there is an immigrantion debate the immediate response is what about NHS / foreign doctors. There are hardly any delevoped nations where as a doctor you will struggle to get a work permit & whatever policy the government pursue it won't change that.
The issue is much more relevant in the private sector, where there is much more variability in what fields get work permits from country to country.
May's great achievement may well be to save the Labour party.
Not if they keep up with the poster (downthread) about Cons' failed immigration pledges, it won't.
A Tory turn to the right is much more likely to lead to Corbyn's demise. A lot of soft-Corbynistas will be wondering where the Labour leadership's response is to what has been happening at the Tory conference. Jeremy is currently at a radical film festival in the North West, and will be heading to the Stop the War event in London on Saturday. The Tories, meanwhile, have upped the stakes.
I'm not seeing evidence of soft Corbynistas. It seems the party is full of 'true believers' who have swamped those who are actual believers in the Labour Party.
Just a thought - once outside the EU and not subject to its FOM rules, could we not introduce something akin to the Gastarbeiter programme of the 60s and 70s ? Migrants would be allowed to work here for 1-2 years on a fixed contract supported by an employer who might also have to contribute to housing and other costs.
Once the Contract is over, the migrant goes home with any monies saved and makes way for a new migrant.
@theobertram: So, Prime Minister Theresa May & Labour leader Corbyn will now both have the same message: if you voted New Labour, then go join the Tories
Really bothers me that Whenever there is an immigrantion debate the immediate response is what about NHS / foreign doctors. There are hardly any delevoped nations where as a doctor you will struggle to get a work permit & whatever policy the government pursue it won't change that.
The issue is much more relevant in the private sector, where there is much more variability in what fields get work permits from country to country.
Of course it is, but its the default leftie defense to any new Tory proposal, everything has to be seen through the prism of the nurses, doctors and teachers. Any spending cut is about how many nurses or teacher we will lose, and any spending commitment they don't like will be explained to the public in terms of how many nurses, doctors or teacher they could have paid for instead, its all very stale and boring.
Sadly, some PB people are less concerned about the welfare of their fellow citizens and worry more about the welfare of citizens from outside the UK.
Rubbish, I think telling people who will have been in this country for a minimum of 9 years to bugger off in 2025 is completely wrong. Shaming companies who do nothing outside of the law is wrong. Firefighting against the symptoms and increasing the size and reach of government is not the Tory way. We must look at the cause of why companies are so ready to hire foreign workers, we need root and branch reform of our education sector and for universities to stop buggering about with safe spaces and get back to helping students obtaining excellence.
I refer you to that airplane cleaning company example I quoted elsewhere on here and its practice of hiring spanish workers (also Charles and the polish workers). Education is not the grounds on who they hire to clean inside planes. Research has found (quoted on BBC) that >80% (I recall 85%) of EU workers that came in last year are unskilled and would not meet the criteria that non-EU workers have to achieve.
So let's figure out a way to make these jobs more attractive to British people. It means solving the fundamental problems of low wages and high living costs. Not just firefighting.
Doesnt make any difference if the competition is happy to accept a lower standard of living they will always outcompete you.
We have an inefficient economy with a large rent part that keeps all prices high.... There is an awful lot of structural issues within the economy (especially tax credits) that should have been fixed in the past 6 years where the work hasn't even been started..
Sadly, some PB people are less concerned about the welfare of their fellow citizens and worry more about the welfare of citizens from outside the UK.
Rubbish, I think telling people who will have been in this country for a minimum of 9 years to bugger off in 2025 is completely wrong. Shaming companies who do nothing outside of the law is wrong. Firefighting against the symptoms and increasing the size and reach of government is not the Tory way. We must look at the cause of why companies are so ready to hire foreign workers, we need root and branch reform of our education sector and for universities to stop buggering about with safe spaces and get back to helping students obtaining excellence.
I refer you to that airplane cleaning company example I quoted elsewhere on here and its practice of hiring spanish workers (also Charles and the polish workers). Education is not the grounds on who they hire to clean inside planes. Research has found (quoted on BBC) that >80% (I recall 85%) of EU workers that came in last year are unskilled and would not meet the criteria that non-EU workers have to achieve.
So let's figure out a way to make these jobs more attractive to British people. It means solving the fundamental problems of low wages and high living costs. Not just firefighting.
We could slash our benefit system to be as miserly as those nations that the migrants are coming from. Do you want to do that?
Something along those lines, at least make it contributory and eliminate housing benefits and all in working benefits. Wage subsidies are just corporate subsidies.
Despite many European countries having a contributory system, as soon as it is raised here people do their nut. Seems fair to me, but you watch the bbc / guardian wing claim it is discriminatary & unfair & yadda yadda yadda.
Well not at all since he would have been a citizen by then, can't deport citizens. I still find the rhetoric a bit off.
The rhetoric is appalling. People who are living and working here legally and their employers should not be shamed into anything or ashamed of what they are doing. We should be ashamed of talking about people and firms in such a way.
I do think there should be controls on immigration which have the consent of the majority of the population and set out some basic principles in a thread header earlier this year. What those controls should be is a matter for legitimate and civilised debate.
Making sure that British citizens are given the tools and opportunities to take the jobs that are available is an absolutely honourable and necessary course of action. But that involves looking at ourselves and remedying our own failings not pointing at others and accusing them. Beams and motes.....
But ad hominem nastiness is absolutely the wrong way to go about this important subject.
Just as it was when Labour attacked companies over their legal tax arrangements or both parties did to individuals over their tax affairs.
May's great achievement may well be to save the Labour party.
Not if they keep up with the poster (downthread) about Cons' failed immigration pledges, it won't.
A Tory turn to the right is much more likely to lead to Corbyn's demise. A lot of soft-Corbynistas will be wondering where the Labour leadership's response is to what has been happening at the Tory conference. Jeremy is currently at a radical film festival in the North West, and will be heading to the Stop the War event in London on Saturday. The Tories, meanwhile, have upped the stakes.
Is there not a long standing protocol that major parties keep a low profile during the others conference? I remember the fuss when Brown pulled a stunt by going to Iraq
Harry Cole 1st Tory female muslim MP @Nus_Ghani: “must be from oppressed minority, you're right - before I was elected I was a Conservative at the BBC"
Just a thought - once outside the EU and not subject to its FOM rules, could we not introduce something akin to the Gastarbeiter programme of the 60s and 70s ? Migrants would be allowed to work here for 1-2 years on a fixed contract supported by an employer who might also have to contribute to housing and other costs.
Once the Contract is over, the migrant goes home with any monies saved and makes way for a new migrant.
Great idea- we can also get them to wear a shirt with a huge M so we can all know they are a migrant. But we shouldn't allow them in public places outside work.
Stodge comrade....do you remotely realise how terrible you sound?
Just a thought - once outside the EU and not subject to its FOM rules, could we not introduce something akin to the Gastarbeiter programme of the 60s and 70s ? Migrants would be allowed to work here for 1-2 years on a fixed contract supported by an employer who might also have to contribute to housing and other costs.
Once the Contract is over, the migrant goes home with any monies saved and makes way for a new migrant.
Better than the present arrangement. Key is that the employer picks up more of the costs and the state less.
Sadly, some PB people are less concerned about the welfare of their fellow citizens and worry more about the welfare of citizens from outside the UK.
Rubbish, I think telling people who will have been in this country for a minimum of 9 years to bugger off in 2025 is completely wrong. Shaming companies who do nothing outside of the law is wrong. Firefighting against the symptoms and increasing the size and reach of government is not the Tory way. We must look at the cause of why companies are so ready to hire foreign workers, we need root and branch reform of our education sector and for universities to stop buggering about with safe spaces and get back to helping students obtaining excellence.
I refer you to that airplane cleaning company example I quoted elsewhere on here and its practice of hiring spanish workers (also Charles and the polish workers). Education is not the grounds on who they hire to clean inside planes. Research has found (quoted on BBC) that >80% (I recall 85%) of EU workers that came in last year are unskilled and would not meet the criteria that non-EU workers have to achieve.
So let's figure out a way to make these jobs more attractive to British people. It means solving the fundamental problems of low wages and high living costs. Not just firefighting.
Doesnt make any difference if the competition is happy to accept a lower standard of living they will always outcompete you.
I think that a very negative approach. Germany is not a low wage economy with low living standards, yet is a major exporter, the same is true of a number of other European countries including Italy and Spain as well as Sweden and the Netherlands. The reason is that the goods that they produce are sufficiently good as to support a price premium. Arguably the same goes for successful British exporters, whether of manufactured goods or financial services.
The British disease was not cured by joining the EU and neither will it be cured by leaving it.
Breaking with tradition, Number 10 will not be releasing the designer and price of the clothes worn by the prime minister’s spouse on the last day of party conference.
Sadly, some PB people are less concerned about the welfare of their fellow citizens and worry more about the welfare of citizens from outside the UK.
Rubbish, I think telling people who will have been in this country for a minimum of 9 years to bugger off in 2025 is completely wrong. Shaming companies who do nothing outside of the law is wrong. Firefighting against the symptoms and increasing the size and reach of government is not the Tory way. We must look at the cause of why companies are so ready to hire foreign workers, we need root and branch reform of our education sector and for universities to stop buggering about with safe spaces and get back to helping students obtaining excellence.
I refer you to that airplane cleaning company example I quoted elsewhere on here and its practice of hiring spanish workers (also Charles and the polish workers). Education is not the grounds on who they hire to clean inside planes. Research has found (quoted on BBC) that >80% (I recall 85%) of EU workers that came in last year are unskilled and would not meet the criteria that non-EU workers have to achieve.
So let's figure out a way to make these jobs more attractive to British people. It means solving the fundamental problems of low wages and high living costs. Not just firefighting.
We could slash our benefit system to be as miserly as those nations that the migrants are coming from. Do you want to do that?
Something along those lines, at least make it contributory and eliminate housing benefits and all in working benefits. Wage subsidies are just corporate subsidies.
Except there's next to no such thing as "wage subsidies" in this country. Benefits are for housing, or children not wages. To my knowledge only basic Working Tax Credits are linked to wages alone, rather than whether you're married or have kids etc which isn't to do with wages or corporations.
Well not at all since he would have been a citizen by then, can't deport citizens. I still find the rhetoric a bit off.
The rhetoric is appalling. People who are living and working here legally and their employers should not be shamed into anything or ashamed of what they are doing. We should be ashamed of talking about people and firms in such a way.
I do think there should be controls on immigration which have the consent of the majority of the population and set out some basic principles in a thread header earlier this year. What those controls should be is a matter for legitimate and civilised debate.
Making sure that British citizens are given the tools and opportunities to take the jobs that are available is an absolutely honourable and necessary course of action. But that involves looking at ourselves and remedying our own failings not pointing at others and accusing them. Beams and motes.....
But ad hominem nastiness is absolutely the wrong way to go about this important subject.
Just as it was when Labour attacked companies over their legal tax arrangements or both parties did to individuals over their tax affairs.
May's great achievement may well be to save the Labour party.
Not if they keep up with the poster (downthread) about Cons' failed immigration pledges, it won't.
A Tory turn to the right is much more likely to lead to Corbyn's demise. A lot of soft-Corbynistas will be wondering where the Labour leadership's response is to what has been happening at the Tory conference. Jeremy is currently at a radical film festival in the North West, and will be heading to the Stop the War event in London on Saturday. The Tories, meanwhile, have upped the stakes.
I'm not seeing evidence of soft Corbynistas. It seems the party is full of 'true believers' who have swamped those who are actual believers in the Labour Party.
They may have joined, and made a few mouse clicks to vote for Jezza, but I suspect that for many that will be the sum total of their involvement. A few entryist types turned up at our branch meeting last night, but not many, and not enough to cause any mischief.
Sadly, some PB people are less concerned about the welfare of their fellow citizens and worry more about the welfare of citizens from outside the UK.
Rubbish, I think telling people who will have been in this country for a minimum of 9 years to bugger off in 2025 is completely wrong. Shaming companies who do nothing outside of the law is wrong. Firefighting against the symptoms and increasing the size and reach of government is not the Tory way. We must look at the cause of why companies are so ready to hire foreign workers, we need root and branch reform of our education sector and for universities to stop buggering about with safe spaces and get back to helping students obtaining excellence.
I refer you to that airplane cleaning company example I quoted elsewhere on here and its practice of hiring spanish workers (also Charles and the polish workers). Education is not the grounds on who they hire to clean inside planes. Research has found (quoted on BBC) that >80% (I recall 85%) of EU workers that came in last year are unskilled and would not meet the criteria that non-EU workers have to achieve.
So let's figure out a way to make these jobs more attractive to British people. It means solving the fundamental problems of low wages and high living costs. Not just firefighting.
1. Advertise first in the UK. 2. Suppress benefit payment increases. 3. No benefits to foreign workers until they have worked here for 5+ years. 4. Bring in work permit charges of ideally £10,000+ pa. (Covers NHS etc costs) 5. Build >100,000 houses/flats in London each year. May then have no need for limits.
You presumably expect these migrants to pay taxes? If so why charge them £10k on top for the NHS that they are already paying for, especially if you are going to deny them any other in work benefits?
Incidentally, anyone resident for 5 years will be eligible for UK citizenship
Well not at all since he would have been a citizen by then, can't deport citizens. I still find the rhetoric a bit off.
The rhetoric is appalling. People who are living and working here legally and their employers should not be shamed into anything or ashamed of what they are doing. We should be ashamed of talking about people and firms in such a way.
I do think there should be controls on immigration which have the consent of the majority of the population and set out some basic principles in a thread header earlier this year. What those controls should be is a matter for legitimate and civilised debate.
Making sure that British citizens are given the tools and opportunities to take the jobs that are available is an absolutely honourable and necessary course of action. But that involves looking at ourselves and remedying our own failings not pointing at others and accusing them. Beams and motes.....
But ad hominem nastiness is absolutely the wrong way to go about this important subject.
Just as it was when Labour attacked companies over their legal tax arrangements or both parties did to individuals over their tax affairs.
How I long for some grown ups in politics.
Language is so important.
The rhetoric that is spewing out of the Tory leadership is horrific. It's beyond appalling. I had to switch off the radio this morning because my wife was close to tears....anger. How dare they stigmatise foreigners with this language?
Ultimately the UK is a tolerant country. May will quickly realise that she has misjudged the public mood playing to the Daily Mail and Sun.
Sadly, some PB people are less concerned about the welfare of their fellow citizens and worry more about the welfare of citizens from outside the UK.
Rubbish, I think telling people who will have been in this country for a minimum of 9 years to bugger off in 2025 is completely wrong. Shaming companies who do nothing outside of the law is wrong. Firefighting against the symptoms and increasing the size and reach of government is not the Tory way. We must look at the cause of why companies are so ready to hire foreign workers, we need root and branch reform of our education sector and for universities to stop buggering about with safe spaces and get back to helping students obtaining excellence.
I refer you to that airplane cleaning company example I quoted elsewhere on here and its practice of hiring spanish workers (also Charles and the polish workers). Education is not the grounds on who they hire to clean inside planes. Research has found (quoted on BBC) that >80% (I recall 85%) of EU workers that came in last year are unskilled and would not meet the criteria that non-EU workers have to achieve.
So let's figure out a way to make these jobs more attractive to British people. It means solving the fundamental problems of low wages and high living costs. Not just firefighting.
1. Advertise first in the UK. 2. Suppress benefit payment increases. 3. No benefits to foreign workers until they have worked here for 5+ years. 4. Bring in work permit charges of ideally £10,000+ pa. (Covers NHS etc costs) 5. Build >100,000 houses/flats in London each year. May then have no need for limits.
You presumably expect these migrants to pay taxes? If so why charge them £10k on top for the NHS that they are already paying for, especially if you are going to deny them any other in work benefits?
Work permit fees are paid by employers not employees. It is a tax on foreign workers. The Cayman Islands earns millions for its Govt through that route and in my time needed no income tax.
Rubbish, I think telling people who will have been in this country for a minimum of 9 years to bugger off in 2025 is completely wrong. Shaming companies who do nothing outside of the law is wrong. Firefighting against the symptoms and increasing the size and reach of government is not the Tory way. We must look at the cause of why companies are so ready to hire foreign workers, we need root and branch reform of our education sector and for universities to stop buggering about with safe spaces and get back to helping students obtaining excellence.
I refer you to that airplane cleaning company example I quoted elsewhere on here and its practice of hiring spanish workers (also Charles and the polish workers). Education is not the grounds on who they hire to clean inside planes. Research has found (quoted on BBC) that >80% (I recall 85%) of EU workers that came in last year are unskilled and would not meet the criteria that non-EU workers have to achieve.
So let's figure out a way to make these jobs more attractive to British people. It means solving the fundamental problems of low wages and high living costs. Not just firefighting.
Doesnt make any difference if the competition is happy to accept a lower standard of living they will always outcompete you.
I think that a very negative approach. Germany is not a low wage economy with low living standards, yet is a major exporter, the same is true of a number of other European countries including Italy and Spain as well as Sweden and the Netherlands. The reason is that the goods that they produce are sufficiently good as to support a price premium. Arguably the same goes for successful British exporters, whether of manufactured goods or financial services.
The British disease was not cured by joining the EU and neither will it be cured by leaving it.
Its objectively the case though. Forget minimum wage jobs, take a reasonable job paying say £12-15/hr. For the average high school qualified Brit that's a nice sum, for a graduate Brit they probably have better offers, for anyone with higher qualifications they would even look at it. For someone from Eastern Europe its an incredibly generous salary whatever your level of qualification, and if you are used to the simple life it will be more than enough for you, and if you live basically for a few years will give you a nice nest egg to take home. You will therefore get Eastern Europeans with degrees applying for the same jobs as high school leavers in the UK, who do you think usually gets the job ?
Despite many European countries having a contributory system, as soon as it is raised here people do their nut. Seems fair to me, but you watch the bbc / guardian wing claim it is discriminatary & unfair & yadda yadda yadda.
Who's doing their nut?
The practical problem is that the country isn't usually happy to just leave people who haven't contributed to die, and the current amounts they get are set at a level that's barely enough to live on already, so there's not much of a saving there, but people who contributed have to get substantially more, so the whole thing ends up being a lot more expensive than a system that pays out purely based on need.
Sadly, some PB people are less concerned about the welfare of their fellow citizens and worry more about the welfare of citizens from outside the UK.
Rubbish, I think telling people who will have been in this country for a minimum of 9 years to bugger off in 2025 is completely wrong. Shaming companies who do nothing outside of the law is wrong. Firefighting against the symptoms and increasing the size and reach of government is not the Tory way. We must look at the cause of why companies are so ready to hire foreign workers, we need root and branch reform of our education sector and for universities to stop buggering about with safe spaces and get back to helping students obtaining excellence.
I refer you to that airplane cleaning company example I quoted elsewhere on here and its practice of hiring spanish workers (also Charles and the polish workers). Education is not the grounds on who they hire to clean inside planes. Research has found (quoted on BBC) that >80% (I recall 85%) of EU workers that came in last year are unskilled and would not meet the criteria that non-EU workers have to achieve.
So let's figure out a way to make these jobs more attractive to British people. It means solving the fundamental problems of low wages and high living costs. Not just firefighting.
We could slash our benefit system to be as miserly as those nations that the migrants are coming from. Do you want to do that?
Something along those lines, at least make it contributory and eliminate housing benefits and all in working benefits. Wage subsidies are just corporate subsidies.
Despite many European countries having a contributory system, as soon as it is raised here people do their nut. Seems fair to me, but you watch the bbc / guardian wing claim it is discriminatary & unfair & yadda yadda yadda.
We already have one. For example, you won't get ESA unless you have a) paid 2 or 3 years NI in recent tax years or are b) absolutely skint and have no working partner. The full pension needs 35 years of NI.
What's at issue is whether you expand contribution. Seems the only hope for the welfare state to me and could be made into a system that people are prepared to pay in because it offer proper protection if disaster strikes e.g. 70% of income for first 6 months of unemployment.
Rubbish, I think telling people who will have been in this country for a minimum of 9 years to bugger off in 2025 is completely wrong. Shaming companies who do nothing outside of the law is wrong. Firefighting against the symptoms and increasing the size and reach of government is not the Tory way. We must look at the cause of why companies are so ready to hire foreign workers, we need root and branch reform of our education sector and for universities to stop buggering about with safe spaces and get back to helping students obtaining excellence.
I refer you to that airplane cleaning company example I quoted elsewhere on here and its practice of hiring spanish workers (also Charles and the polish workers). Education is not the grounds on who they hire to clean inside planes. Research has found (quoted on BBC) that >80% (I recall 85%) of EU workers that came in last year are unskilled and would not meet the criteria that non-EU workers have to achieve.
So let's figure out a way to make these jobs more attractive to British people. It means solving the fundamental problems of low wages and high living costs. Not just firefighting.
Doesnt make any difference if the competition is happy to accept a lower standard of living they will always outcompete you.
I think that a very negative approach. Germany is not a low wage economy with low living standards, yet is a major exporter, the same is true of a number of other European countries including Italy and Spain as well as Sweden and the Netherlands. The reason is that the goods that they produce are sufficiently good as to support a price premium. ....
Its objectively the case though. Forget minimum wage jobs, take a reasonable job paying say £12-15/hr. For the average high school qualified Brit that's a nice sum, for a graduate Brit they probably have better offers, for anyone with higher qualifications they would even look at it. For someone from Eastern Europe its an incredibly generous salary whatever your level of qualification, and if you are used to the simple life it will be more than enough for you, and if you live basically for a few years will give you a nice nest egg to take home. You will therefore get Eastern Europeans with degrees applying for the same jobs as high school leavers in the UK, who do you think usually gets the job ?
Excellent point. We have circa 500,000 18 year olds without degrees entering the job market each year competing with millions from the EU with degrees. Want a degree level waiter? The EU has a lot of them for us.
Comments
But the tenor of the criticism of welfare is so often such that the whole concept of welfare is undermined. It is a 'system', it will always have small pockets of over generosity and will always be to some degree gameable - we should always look to tighten loopholes, but the only way to eliminate them totally is to eliminate the system altogether. But by thinking of welfare simply as the sum of those specific issues, you will always come to the conclusion that welfare should be tightened - there is no happy medium to be reached or else, in practice, we never reach that happy medium. Many scoff at the idea that we could ever go back to the Victorian era in terms of how the poor are viewed and treated, and to think it would happen with a single decision overnight is indeed absurd. But an anti-welfare direction of travel over 20-30 years could put enough people into that position and it is only once you get beyond the uncomplainingly vulnerable that it will become noticable, and to think that could never happen would be complacent.
As with criminal justice, the bleeding heart positions - for the poor welfare recipient, for the poor burdened taxpayer - lie at both end of the spectrum, with proponents of the latter entirely oblivious to the fact that they are every bit as much bleeding hearts as their polar opposites. The true hard headed position is somewhere in the centre.
That may be short on specifics, no apologies for that, but I feel this is a debate where the intellectual basis for having welfare in the first place has got lost in the mists of time, and we should at least refer back to that start point when we assess where policy is now.
https://twitter.com/labourpress/status/783266273266429952
What the hell is she thinking of playing the populist card? And Rudd? The stuff on foreigners is appalling, terrible, shocking. This isn't the UK that I know and grew up in. Pandering to the lowest common denominator bullshit. Do they know what the impact of this kind of language has on people like my wife, someone who has worked and contributed to the UK for over 20 years. She feels hated.
Gordon Brown showed us the pitfalls of going down the populist route. Shame on Theresa May...instead of showing leadership she is creating division, hatred and anger. Well done her.
Are we going to see 10% inflation? 20%? What do you think?
'People who go into the media — the people who go into the BBC — are, in general, of that kind of centre-Left stamp. I think it might even be a good thing if the BBC admitted it was a bit centre-Left and had the odd programme [to balance it out]. If, just like it has Woman's Hour, it had a Right-Wing Hour.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3822494/SEBASTIAN-SHAKESPEARE-Lefty-Beeb-needs-Right-Wing-Hour-says-Baddiel-Comedian-suggests-Corporation-correct-liberal-bias-output.html
So far, against the odds, Labour has had the best conference season.
Anyway glad we all agree the LSE found Corbyn misrepresented 75% of the time
Poor Amber Rudd
https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/783415232093827072
"I keep trying to escape" - @Nigel_Farage confirms he is now @UKIP interim leader https://t.co/gClHuZph6P https://t.co/Tc9tEpxzot
http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/pdf/JeremyCorbyn/Cobyn-Report-FINAL.pdf
As with all media analysis there is inevitably subjectivity over what counts as legitimate criticism and what is not. They seem to get particularly upset about papers bringing up Corbyn's dealings with terrorists.
Briebart
Italy: Record 10,000 Migrants Rescued in Two Days https://t.co/TWu52dpXrh https://t.co/UMuYO2ZAJp
One thing I would add is while a poached trainee may immediately be a loss, developing an ever more skilled pool of workers to poach is also In a business' interest.
https://twitter.com/pitmuxton/status/783604710154592258
It's very odd. Almost as weird as when one of the Gandhis won the Indian election, then resigned rather than take office.
Or maybe apply for a job at the 0% positive article Express!!
In the long run, of course, it's utterly counterproductive. The Leave vote was due in part to people feeling that every time their legitimate concerns are even approached by a politician, let alone actually addressed, they get shot down with apocalyptic language.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to work (~50% British, last hire British, we never advertise abroad).
Presumably while 'paying into the system' they've also been able to avail of the services the system provides?
I have spent most of the last two decades working around Asia on and off, and never had the expectation that I would get my visa extended. Sometime I did, sometimes I didn't. If you don't move on, find somewhere else to work
I think you mean the balanced Express:
The Daily Mail and The Daily Express also have a high degree of balanced reporting, mixing pro and anti-Corbyn sources in its news reporting about Corbyn (respectively 43% and 49% of news articles)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/05/wheres-corbyn-labour-leader-found-buying-his-wife-knitwear-befor/
He is slowing gaining some understanding about how businesses work.
We have Labour 'unlimited immigration' and Conservative 'controlled immigration' - which do you think will prove more popular?
Never thought I'd be arguing about higher wages with you, surby.
https://twitter.com/kezdugdale/status/783585486778560512
2. Suppress benefit payment increases.
3. No benefits to foreign workers until they have worked here for 5+ years.
4. Bring in work permit charges of ideally £10,000+ pa. (Covers NHS etc costs)
5. Build >100,000 houses/flats in London each year.
May then have no need for limits.
The issue is much more relevant in the private sector, where there is much more variability in what fields get work permits from country to country.
Once the Contract is over, the migrant goes home with any monies saved and makes way for a new migrant.
Trump 47 (+4)
Clinton 43
https://t.co/EP60vV6t2e
@theobertram: So, Prime Minister Theresa May & Labour leader Corbyn will now both have the same message: if you voted New Labour, then go join the Tories
I do think there should be controls on immigration which have the consent of the majority of the population and set out some basic principles in a thread header earlier this year. What those controls should be is a matter for legitimate and civilised debate.
Making sure that British citizens are given the tools and opportunities to take the jobs that are available is an absolutely honourable and necessary course of action. But that involves looking at ourselves and remedying our own failings not pointing at others and accusing them. Beams and motes.....
But ad hominem nastiness is absolutely the wrong way to go about this important subject.
Just as it was when Labour attacked companies over their legal tax arrangements or both parties did to individuals over their tax affairs.
How I long for some grown ups in politics.
Harry Cole
1st Tory female muslim MP @Nus_Ghani: “must be from oppressed minority, you're right - before I was elected I was a Conservative at the BBC"
Great idea- we can also get them to wear a shirt with a huge M so we can all know they are a migrant. But we shouldn't allow them in public places outside work.
Stodge comrade....do you remotely realise how terrible you sound?
http://news.sky.com/story/live-conservative-party-conference-day-three-10606016
The British disease was not cured by joining the EU and neither will it be cured by leaving it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/number-10-breaks-with-conference-tradition-and-wont-reveal-designers-of-clothes-worn-by-prime-ministers-spouse_uk_
Incidentally, anyone resident for 5 years will be eligible for UK citizenship
The rhetoric that is spewing out of the Tory leadership is horrific. It's beyond appalling. I had to switch off the radio this morning because my wife was close to tears....anger. How dare they stigmatise foreigners with this language?
Ultimately the UK is a tolerant country. May will quickly realise that she has misjudged the public mood playing to the Daily Mail and Sun.
"Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in." M. Corleone
(Godfather Part 3 was pretty crap, too.)
The practical problem is that the country isn't usually happy to just leave people who haven't contributed to die, and the current amounts they get are set at a level that's barely enough to live on already, so there's not much of a saving there, but people who contributed have to get substantially more, so the whole thing ends up being a lot more expensive than a system that pays out purely based on need.
What's at issue is whether you expand contribution. Seems the only hope for the welfare state to me and could be made into a system that people are prepared to pay in because it offer proper protection if disaster strikes e.g. 70% of income for first 6 months of unemployment.