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
The £10k is to encourage the employer to actually train someone up rather than employing a foreigner.
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?
Further to Rudd's name and shame idea, can we paint yellow crosses on migrants houses doors. Maybe we can introduce some kind of Heidrich criteria- what about half migrants, migrant children, quarter migrants.
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.
For what it's worth as someone very much interested in tougher immigration control that works for the British people these proposal seem mad.
The cynic in me think this is just deliberately controversial to appeal to some fools in the knowledge it will never actually happen as rightly it will be made a mockery of. May can then say "oh well, we tried" and kick the migration into the long grass.
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.
To continue this thought it is utterly ludicrous to make corporations responsible for how many children a family has etc
Lets say I have a few jobs available and hire at a "living wage" a couple to both work full time. Their household has two full time incomes, they have no kids, they pay a mortgage each month with their wages. They don't receive a single penny of benefits. Clearly there is no so-called "wage subsidy" or "corporate subsidy" to this couple, is there?
Now lets say I hire at the EXACT SAME WAGE for the EXACT SAME JOB a single mother of five who is only available to work part time while the kids are at school. Responsible corporations are supposed to be offering flexible part time working that suits the needs of single parents, but this mother only receives 16 hours a week of part time wages and then further receives five sets of Child Tax Credits and Housing Benefit etc. How is that a corporate subsidy? Is my corporation responsible for her being single or having children?
The logical outcome of suggesting that welfare is a corporate subsidy is to suggest that companies shouldn't hire single parents if they don't wish to be "subsidised". I would suggest that is counter-productive.
I feel now is an optimum time to remind the site I said, when Rudd was appointed Home Secretary, it was to help make May look good by comparison (and to have another top female but one whose lightweight nature prevented her being a threat).
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.
This describes the Japanese system almost exactly. It's 3 months if you leave your job of your own accord, and longer (depending on age and time since you last claimed) if you get fired or made redundant. When you leave a job you tell your employer whether you'd rather have left of your own accord or have been made redundant.
People doing short-term or dispatch work take the piss out of this system quite a lot; You can work for a year, then take three months off, then work for another year...
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.
Done incorrectly, it will destroy the country's tech industry.
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.
I quite agree. Tone matters.
How one says things matters as much as what one says.
It is an amusing irony that all those companies who boast in their annual reports about all the steps they are taking to increase diversity will, if this silly proposal goes through, have to make sure that they are not too diverse.
Honestly, this is so infantile. Issues about culture, identity, what "home" means, immigration, diversity, integration, what is good for the economy, who benefits and who bears the costs of immigration are far too important for this sort of crude nonsense.
I hope you had a good summer in Italy. I am hoping to be back there later this month for a bit of R&R but have a work trip to Singapore first.
I feel now is an optimum time to remind the site I said, when Rudd was appointed Home Secretary, it was to help make May look good by comparison (and to have another top female but one whose lightweight nature prevented her being a threat).
There are intelligent women available. Not many in politics,alas.
Conference, that internationalism abroad must find its echo at home.
We must not forget our own party’s history and values.
I once listened to Sir John Major tell of his childhood in Brixton – then an area where many new arrivals to Britain set up their first home.
And he talked of his Conservative values and those of his neighbours – and said there is nothing as Conservative as pulling your loved ones close and striking out to build a better future for your family.
So as we have difficult – but necessary – debates on how we manage borders in future, let us not forget that behind discussions of numbers and rules and criteria, there lies people and homes and families.
And for those who have already chosen to build a life, open a business, make a contribution, I say this is your home, and you are welcome here.
The Conservative party I know is optimistic in spirit and internationalist in outlook – we are an outward looking people, and so we must remain.
I feel now is an optimum time to remind the site I said, when Rudd was appointed Home Secretary, it was to help make May look good by comparison (and to have another top female but one whose lightweight nature prevented her being a threat).
Rudd could have chosen better policies to reduce immigration. Instead she chose a ham fisted approach. Much as she did with that awful line about Boris and cars. The lady has no class.
It is an amusing irony that all those companies who boast in their annual reports about all the steps they are taking to increase diversity will, if this silly proposal goes through, have to make sure that they are not too diverse.
You appear to be conflating race and nationality ?
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.
To continue this thought it is utterly ludicrous to make corporations responsible for how many children a family has etc
Lets say I have a few jobs available and hire at a "living wage" a couple to both work full time. Their household has two full time incomes, they have no kids, they pay a mortgage each month with their wages. They don't receive a single penny of benefits. Clearly there is no so-called "wage subsidy" or "corporate subsidy" to this couple, is there?
Now lets say I hire at the EXACT SAME WAGE for the EXACT SAME JOB a single mother of five who is only available to work part time while the kids are at school. Responsible corporations are supposed to be offering flexible part time working that suits the needs of single parents, but this mother only receives 16 hours a week of part time wages and then further receives five sets of Child Tax Credits and Housing Benefit etc. How is that a corporate subsidy? Is my corporation responsible for her being single or having children?
The logical outcome of suggesting that welfare is a corporate subsidy is to suggest that companies shouldn't hire single parents if they don't wish to be "subsidised". I would suggest that is counter-productive.
Wearing my devil advocates hat
Working tax credits are encouraging the wrong people to have children while keeping other costs so high they stop others from having children full stop.
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.
Done incorrectly, it will destroy the country's tech industry.
It already has in the UK. Looking around me there is no chance of a youngster getting decent career progression unless he's very lucky with the career advice he gets...
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.
To continue this thought it is utterly ludicrous to make corporations responsible for how many children a family has etc
Lets say I have a few jobs available and hire at a "living wage" a couple to both work full time. Their household has two full time incomes, they have no kids, they pay a mortgage each month with their wages. They don't receive a single penny of benefits. Clearly there is no so-called "wage subsidy" or "corporate subsidy" to this couple, is there?
Now lets say I hire at the EXACT SAME WAGE for the EXACT SAME JOB a single mother of five who is only available to work part time while the kids are at school. Responsible corporations are supposed to be offering flexible part time working that suits the needs of single parents, but this mother only receives 16 hours a week of part time wages and then further receives five sets of Child Tax Credits and Housing Benefit etc. How is that a corporate subsidy? Is my corporation responsible for her being single or having children?
The logical outcome of suggesting that welfare is a corporate subsidy is to suggest that companies shouldn't hire single parents if they don't wish to be "subsidised". I would suggest that is counter-productive.
Wearing my devil advocates hat
Working tax credits are encouraging the wrong people to have children while keeping other costs so high they stop others from having children full stop.
That I agree with but that's between government and the citizens involved - it has the square root of sod all to do with corporations. I have never been in an employees bedroom when they were making that sort of decision!
We can't afford the US University system. We just have to do our best. And as has been done to death there are currently far more immigrants than emigrants.
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.
Done incorrectly, it will destroy the country's tech industry.
It already has in the UK. Looking around me there is no chance of a youngster getting decent career progression unless he's very lucky with the career advice he gets...
May I ask what part of the tech sector you are in?
I'm wondering if I'm sort of lucky dinosaur: I don't have a degree, yet alone in tech, and I've done okay for myself. Am I the last of a dying breed in the tech sector?
To give May some credit, she is clearly able to say things that resonate with non-Tories (such as myself). But I don't yet see the policies that will make her aspirations happen?
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.
Done incorrectly, it will destroy the country's tech industry.
It already has in the UK. Looking around me there is no chance of a youngster getting decent career progression unless he's very lucky with the career advice he gets...
Also because working in IT sucks unless you are one of the lucky few.
It is an amusing irony that all those companies who boast in their annual reports about all the steps they are taking to increase diversity will, if this silly proposal goes through, have to make sure that they are not too diverse.
You appear to be conflating race and nationality ?
Personally I don't think that employers should do any sociological monitioring.
However the left established the principle by making them monitor ethnicity, gender, sexuality disablement etc. Now they bitch that someone else has decided to make companies monitor something they don't want monitoring (nationality).
As with so many Blair era policies they didnt think through the long term and how future governments of a different bent would use their exciting progressive laws.
The left have been hoist by their own petard and Mrs May is bringing forward policies that put them on the wrong side of the argument in social matters in much the same way that Osborne did in economic matters.
The difference is that May appears to be doing it because it supports a principle she believes in and is for the greater good. Osborne appeared not to care for the principle, only whether it gave party advantage.
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.
Done incorrectly, it will destroy the country's tech industry.
It already has in the UK. Looking around me there is no chance of a youngster getting decent career progression unless he's very lucky with the career advice he gets...
May I ask what part of the tech sector you are in?
I'm wondering if I'm sort of lucky dinosaur: I don't have a degree, yet alone in tech, and I've done okay for myself. Am I the last of a dying breed in the tech sector?
Yes, you probably are. Individual portfolios and self teaching are not as valued as they used to be, even though I think they should be. At least when my time in computing was coming to an end everyone entering the sector were just a mildly different versions of each other.
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.
Done incorrectly, it will destroy the country's tech industry.
It already has in the UK. Looking around me there is no chance of a youngster getting decent career progression unless he's very lucky with the career advice he gets...
May I ask what part of the tech sector you are in?
I'm wondering if I'm sort of lucky dinosaur: I don't have a degree, yet alone in tech, and I've done okay for myself. Am I the last of a dying breed in the tech sector?
I'm an IT contractor - specializing in a particular Microsoft product (Dynamics CRM / or Dynamics 365 as of next Tuesday) nowadays.
You really only have to look around you, look at the company you are in and work out what the career path you would need to get various positions in the company. Then try to work out how you would get there since work began to be offshored... Then go and try something else.
@tlg86 Amber Rudd wants to shame the universities that employ them.
Obviously that's stupid, and fwiw I take the cynical view that this is the Tories doing what they do best - talking tough but actually not doing anything. As many have already pointed out, what we need to address is the reason why firms feel they have to look abroad to fill jobs. Some of the reasons might not go down well with the electorate, but we need some home truths.
But anyway, I'm guessing the Nobel scientists have been living outside of the UK since before 23 June?
It is an amusing irony that all those companies who boast in their annual reports about all the steps they are taking to increase diversity will, if this silly proposal goes through, have to make sure that they are not too diverse.
You appear to be conflating race and nationality ?
Personally I don't think that employers should do any sociological monitioring.
However the left established the principle by making them monitor ethnicity, gender, sexuality disablement etc. Now they bitch that someone else has decided to make companies monitor something they don't want monitoring (nationality).
As with so many Blair era policies they didnt think through the long term and how future governments of a different bent would use their exciting progressive laws.
The left have been hoist by their own petard and Mrs May is bringing forward policies that put them on the wrong side of the argument in social matters in much the same way that Osborne did in economic matters.
The difference is that May appears to be doing it because it supports a principle she believes in and is for the greater good. Osborne appeared not to care for the principle, only whether it gave party advantage.
Yup, I'd like to know where people are employed - I don't give a toss about who they sleep with. Or religious whatever.
Conference, that internationalism abroad must find its echo at home.
We must not forget our own party’s history and values.
I once listened to Sir John Major tell of his childhood in Brixton – then an area where many new arrivals to Britain set up their first home.
And he talked of his Conservative values and those of his neighbours – and said there is nothing as Conservative as pulling your loved ones close and striking out to build a better future for your family.
So as we have difficult – but necessary – debates on how we manage borders in future, let us not forget that behind discussions of numbers and rules and criteria, there lies people and homes and families.
And for those who have already chosen to build a life, open a business, make a contribution, I say this is your home, and you are welcome here.
The Conservative party I know is optimistic in spirit and internationalist in outlook – we are an outward looking people, and so we must remain.
I fear Ruth Davidson went off message there. Some autonomy in the colonies, I guess. Kudos, nevertheless to Ms Davidson, who is the classy one at this conference.
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.
Done incorrectly, it will destroy the country's tech industry.
It already has in the UK. Looking around me there is no chance of a youngster getting decent career progression unless he's very lucky with the career advice he gets...
Also because working in IT sucks unless you are one of the lucky few.
(Did 25 years in Corporate and Contract IT before I saw the light!)
I sat in a niche consultancy for 8 years before going back to contracting to retain control of my career. The trick is to do stuff you enjoy and where you know the bodies are buried.
It is nevertheless remarkable that she's been going for ages but has yet to make a single concrete policy proposal that would do anything to address any of the very real issues and concerns she has mapped out in her speech...
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.
Done incorrectly, it will destroy the country's tech industry.
It already has in the UK. Looking around me there is no chance of a youngster getting decent career progression unless he's very lucky with the career advice he gets...
May I ask what part of the tech sector you are in?
I'm wondering if I'm sort of lucky dinosaur: I don't have a degree, yet alone in tech, and I've done okay for myself. Am I the last of a dying breed in the tech sector?
Yes, you probably are. Individual portfolios and self teaching are not as valued as they used to be, even though I think they should be. At least when my time in computing was coming to an end everyone entering the sector were just a mildly different versions of each other.
I used to interview graduates, and you could always tell the people who had taught themselves and got a degree afterwards: they had a depth of knowledge that came from having done things wrong many, many times before learning the correct way. It is a valuable skill IMO.
As an amusing (for me) aside: a few years ago I went for an interview with a start-up to do a small amount of contracting. When I turned up I recognised the interviewer's face: it was someone I had interviewed many years earlier for a graduate job. We chatted for a while, and he smirked as he handed over a programming test. It was the same one I had given him all those years ago.
I expect May sees herself as very centrist, but calculates the Conservaties weren't in the sweet spot of that centre, particularly outside London. So she is tacking economic policy slightly to the Left, whilst ultimately recognising the need for fiscal conservatism, and tacking slightly to the Right socially.
The rhetoric is aimed squarely at working/lower middle-class voters, rather than urbane middle-class journalists, and is proto-Thatcherite, but also cognisant of equality of opportunity for all.
I expect May sees herself as very centrist, but calculates the Conservaties weren't in the sweet spot of that centre, particularly outside London. So she is tacking economic policy slightly to the Left, whilst ultimately recognising the need for fiscal conservatism, and tacking slightly to the Right socially.
The rhetoric is aimed squarely at working/middle-class voters, rather than urbane middle-class journalists, and I suspect that is no accident.
I expect May sees herself as very centrist, but calculates the Conservaties weren't in the sweet spot of that centre, particularly outside London. So she is tacking economic policy slightly to the Left, whilst ultimately recognising the need for fiscal conservatism, and tacking slightly to the Right socially.
The rhetoric is aimed squarely at working/lower middle-class voters, rather than urbane middle-class journalists, and is proto-Thatcherite, but also cognisant of equality of opportunity for all.
I suspect none of that is an accident.
Indeed. This is utterly parking tanks all over labours future path to power.
Conference, that internationalism abroad must find its echo at home.
We must not forget our own party’s history and values.
I once listened to Sir John Major tell of his childhood in Brixton – then an area where many new arrivals to Britain set up their first home.
And he talked of his Conservative values and those of his neighbours – and said there is nothing as Conservative as pulling your loved ones close and striking out to build a better future for your family.
So as we have difficult – but necessary – debates on how we manage borders in future, let us not forget that behind discussions of numbers and rules and criteria, there lies people and homes and families.
And for those who have already chosen to build a life, open a business, make a contribution, I say this is your home, and you are welcome here.
The Conservative party I know is optimistic in spirit and internationalist in outlook – we are an outward looking people, and so we must remain.
I fear Ruth Davidson went off message there. Some autonomy in the colonies, I guess. Kudos, nevertheless to Ms Davidson, who is the classy one at this conference.
I doubt it - these speeches are carefully coordinated - lets see what May says....
What I finding funny about these conferences is how it's always the young activists and researchers, and the retired in attendance. The rest being party hacks, journalists and lobbyists.
Sheer brilliance from May - casting today's Labour as the nasty party
Impressed at yours, and Alastair's, eye for spotting the good lines here.
Labour might as well split now - everyone thinks they are already......
But - as someone who has sat through many such speeches live 'in the hall' - this is the sort of speech that would have me walking from the hall thinking I had heard a great wide-ranging political speech, until someone asked me what it all meant. Sitting at home listening on my PC, I can see that in nearly an hour she has literally proposed absolutely nothing.
I expect May sees herself as very centrist, but calculates the Conservaties weren't in the sweet spot of that centre, particularly outside London. So she is tacking economic policy slightly to the Left, whilst ultimately recognising the need for fiscal conservatism, and tacking slightly to the Right socially.
The rhetoric is aimed squarely at working/lower middle-class voters, rather than urbane middle-class journalists, and is proto-Thatcherite, but also cognisant of equality of opportunity for all.
I suspect none of that is an accident.
I think this is very blue collar pitch - and its pretty good.
As a classic working class One Nation Tory, believing in free markets and liberalism balanced with social conscience, this is thrilling stuff from the PM. She comes across very well and her message will resonate far better with floating voters (and committed Labour voters) more than Cameron or Osborne ever could.
However, I feel delivery is going to prove tricky and she is setting herself an incredibly high bar here across the piece, not just on Brexit!
As a classic working class One Nation Tory, believing in free markets and liberalism balanced with social conscience, this is thrilling stuff from the PM. She comes across very well and her message will resonate far better with floating voters (and committed Labour voters) more than Cameron or Osborne ever could.
However, I feel delivery is going to prove tricky and she is setting herself an incredibly high bar here across the piece, not just on Brexit!
I think her strategic positioning here, politically, is pretty much bang on in terms of maximising Conservative electoral success.
And a decision soon on airport capacity. Interesting she avoided saying 'Heathrow' ?
I'm starting to think the government are going to poison the well for Gatwick by allowing both projects to go ahead and let them raise their own money. There has been a lot chatter coming from Gatwick about this result and they are very worried. There is no way Gatwick will be able to raise enough money if Heathrow is also dipping into the same well.
She's not as polished as Cameron, but she does come across as believing in what she preaches and that can be powerful.
Shifting the nasty party tag to Labour could be extremely powerful if it sticks. Labour and the way it's run could easily make it stick, they aren't helping themselves right now.
It's another centre ground grab and why shouldn't she, the Conservative party is occupying the centre ground and has an opportunity to gain all of it as Labour continues to shift further to the left and the Lib Dems continue to struggle. She is continuing Cameron's one nation tory vision but she has a few different ideas on how to go about it.
As a classic working class One Nation Tory, believing in free markets and liberalism balanced with social conscience, this is thrilling stuff from the PM. She comes across very well and her message will resonate far better with floating voters (and committed Labour voters) more than Cameron or Osborne ever could.
However, I feel delivery is going to prove tricky and she is setting herself an incredibly high bar here across the piece, not just on Brexit!
I think her strategic positioning here, politically, is pretty much bang on in terms of maximising Conservative electoral success.
It is but, apart from 'HS2 is Go', she has much work to do to make all of this come about....
James Forsyth @JGForsyth 2m2 minutes ago This is the problem for Labour, even if they make it back to the common ground of UK politics, they'll find the Tories are dug in there
I expect May sees herself as very centrist, but calculates the Conservaties weren't in the sweet spot of that centre, particularly outside London. So she is tacking economic policy slightly to the Left, whilst ultimately recognising the need for fiscal conservatism, and tacking slightly to the Right socially.
The rhetoric is aimed squarely at working/lower middle-class voters, rather than urbane middle-class journalists, and is proto-Thatcherite, but also cognisant of equality of opportunity for all.
I suspect none of that is an accident.
She has recognised in the way that Cameron completely failed to that the Guardian readers are never going to vote for her, and she is better spending her time trying to pull in the Blue Tory vote.
I expect May sees herself as very centrist, but calculates the Conservaties weren't in the sweet spot of that centre, particularly outside London. So she is tacking economic policy slightly to the Left, whilst ultimately recognising the need for fiscal conservatism, and tacking slightly to the Right socially.
The rhetoric is aimed squarely at working/middle-class voters, rather than urbane middle-class journalists, and I suspect that is no accident.
Midlands marginals, here we come.
I could see seats as far down the target list as Bristol East, Newport West, Southampton Test and Bolton North East falling with an approach like this.
As a classic working class One Nation Tory, believing in free markets and liberalism balanced with social conscience, this is thrilling stuff from the PM. She comes across very well and her message will resonate far better with floating voters (and committed Labour voters) more than Cameron or Osborne ever could.
However, I feel delivery is going to prove tricky and she is setting herself an incredibly high bar here across the piece, not just on Brexit!
Camborne modelled themselves on The Master Tony Blair and failed to understand the fundamental significance of 2008. Being tough on the deficit was never going to be enough. And the anti-elite thing set in well before then.
On reflection, I suspect Cameron has said much of this before in his speeches over the years....
Of course he did. Just look at the headlines after his speech last year. The difficulty is in delivery. Still, now the Tories have decided the deficit is no longer important, I guess all things are possible.
LA poll, out of kilter! Yes. It is not a poll in the strictest sense of the word, but a Tracking Group the same people who are regularly asked. It omits 10% of no view. Regarding the headlines this morning, I guess that will mean the 2 million or so previous Lib Dem voters who voted Conservative in 2015 to keep out Labout and the SNP, will now have gone back to the Lib Dems, this is what is probably showing in the local by elections.
Mr. B2, if that's an accurate representation of what she said (I'm not watching it myself) then she may have well said Carney (and the other person whose name I forgot who said more QE and low rates will be here for years) should pack their bags and sod off.
Mr. B2, if that's an accurate representation of what she said (I'm not watching it myself) then she may have well said Carney (and the other person whose name I forgot who said more QE and low rates will be here for years) should pack their bags and sod off.
As a follower of politics I think this is the first time I have ever heard a politician refer to QE at all. And she basically said it is responsible for many of the problems we face today. Kudos to her.
Conference, that internationalism abroad must find its echo at home.
We must not forget our own party’s history and values.
I once listened to Sir John Major tell of his childhood in Brixton – then an area where many new arrivals to Britain set up their first home.
And he talked of his Conservative values and those of his neighbours – and said there is nothing as Conservative as pulling your loved ones close and striking out to build a better future for your family.
So as we have difficult – but necessary – debates on how we manage borders in future, let us not forget that behind discussions of numbers and rules and criteria, there lies people and homes and families.
And for those who have already chosen to build a life, open a business, make a contribution, I say this is your home, and you are welcome here.
The Conservative party I know is optimistic in spirit and internationalist in outlook – we are an outward looking people, and so we must remain.
I fear Ruth Davidson went off message there. Some autonomy in the colonies, I guess. Kudos, nevertheless to Ms Davidson, who is the classy one at this conference.
I doubt it - these speeches are carefully coordinated - lets see what May says....
May said many times she wants Britain to TRADE globally, choosing her words carefully as far as I can tell. I don't think she ever mentioned anything about PEOPLE in the way Ruth Davidson did above*
* - Except for one disparaging point about international people not belonging anywhere.
And a decision soon on airport capacity. Interesting she avoided saying 'Heathrow' ?
I'm starting to think the government are going to poison the well for Gatwick by allowing both projects to go ahead and let them raise their own money. There has been a lot chatter coming from Gatwick about this result and they are very worried. There is no way Gatwick will be able to raise enough money if Heathrow is also dipping into the same well.
I have a feeling the Government may authorise both but subsidise the other, which would obviously be Gatwick.
And both need to be done IMHO if we're serious about becoming a global trading hub.
Conference you may remember that many years I said to you that many people thought we were thenasty party. Now I can inform you, we truly ARE the nasty party.
Just joking of course. I'm only really following headlines but some of the immigration stuff doesn't seem entirely tactful.
I think she's trying to grab the perception that the Tories are the party of the rich bull by the horns.
Yes. It's rather distasteful in the sense that she's exploiting the class resentment against Cameron to define herself differently, but, hey, politics is a rough game, and he's history now. Ruthlessness is a good trait in a leader, of course.
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37561035
If Amber Rudd could ever be described as impressive, it wouldn't be in a good way.
The cynic in me think this is just deliberately controversial to appeal to some fools in the knowledge it will never actually happen as rightly it will be made a mockery of. May can then say "oh well, we tried" and kick the migration into the long grass.
This is a big big mistake.
Lets say I have a few jobs available and hire at a "living wage" a couple to both work full time. Their household has two full time incomes, they have no kids, they pay a mortgage each month with their wages. They don't receive a single penny of benefits. Clearly there is no so-called "wage subsidy" or "corporate subsidy" to this couple, is there?
Now lets say I hire at the EXACT SAME WAGE for the EXACT SAME JOB a single mother of five who is only available to work part time while the kids are at school. Responsible corporations are supposed to be offering flexible part time working that suits the needs of single parents, but this mother only receives 16 hours a week of part time wages and then further receives five sets of Child Tax Credits and Housing Benefit etc. How is that a corporate subsidy? Is my corporation responsible for her being single or having children?
The logical outcome of suggesting that welfare is a corporate subsidy is to suggest that companies shouldn't hire single parents if they don't wish to be "subsidised". I would suggest that is counter-productive.
People doing short-term or dispatch work take the piss out of this system quite a lot; You can work for a year, then take three months off, then work for another year...
How one says things matters as much as what one says.
It is an amusing irony that all those companies who boast in their annual reports about all the steps they are taking to increase diversity will, if this silly proposal goes through, have to make sure that they are not too diverse.
Honestly, this is so infantile. Issues about culture, identity, what "home" means, immigration, diversity, integration, what is good for the economy, who benefits and who bears the costs of immigration are far too important for this sort of crude nonsense.
I hope you had a good summer in Italy. I am hoping to be back there later this month for a bit of R&R but have a work trip to Singapore first.
Conference, that internationalism abroad must find its echo at home.
We must not forget our own party’s history and values.
I once listened to Sir John Major tell of his childhood in Brixton – then an area where many new arrivals to Britain set up their first home.
And he talked of his Conservative values and those of his neighbours – and said there is nothing as Conservative as pulling your loved ones close and striking out to build a better future for your family.
So as we have difficult – but necessary – debates on how we manage borders in future, let us not forget that behind discussions of numbers and rules and criteria, there lies people and homes and families.
And for those who have already chosen to build a life, open a business, make a contribution, I say this is your home, and you are welcome here.
The Conservative party I know is optimistic in spirit and internationalist in outlook – we are an outward looking people, and so we must remain.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/full-text-ruth-davidsons-conservative-party-conference-speech/
https://twitter.com/kahoakes/status/783606607225782272
Oh, wait....
Working tax credits are encouraging the wrong people to have children while keeping other costs so high they stop others from having children full stop.
In the former's case, some of us accepted him as British when he won an ig Nobel award for levitating frogs. And he wasn't even British then.
http://www.ru.nl/hfml/research/levitation/diamagnetic/
I'm wondering if I'm sort of lucky dinosaur: I don't have a degree, yet alone in tech, and I've done okay for myself. Am I the last of a dying breed in the tech sector?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/08/11/think-your-job-is-bad-try-one-of-these/
(Did 25 years in Corporate and Contract IT before I saw the light!)
Though before that, she accused Labour of plotting against MPs and taking their jobs.
Exactly what many Conservatives did to Cameron ...
I've spent the day being rude about her government, but Theresa May just won the conference season with that line.
However the left established the principle by making them monitor ethnicity, gender, sexuality disablement etc. Now they bitch that someone else has decided to make companies monitor something they don't want monitoring (nationality).
As with so many Blair era policies they didnt think through the long term and how future governments of a different bent would use their exciting progressive laws.
The left have been hoist by their own petard and Mrs May is bringing forward policies that put them on the wrong side of the argument in social matters in much the same way that Osborne did in economic matters.
The difference is that May appears to be doing it because it supports a principle she believes in and is for the greater good. Osborne appeared not to care for the principle, only whether it gave party advantage.
The red lines on immigration and ECJ will be clipped on every new programme too.
Impossibly so, I suspect.
Has she not learnt from Cameron's abject failure to meet his Bloomberg objectives?
If she delivers though...
You really only have to look around you, look at the company you are in and work out what the career path you would need to get various positions in the company. Then try to work out how you would get there since work began to be offshored... Then go and try something else.
But anyway, I'm guessing the Nobel scientists have been living outside of the UK since before 23 June?
As an amusing (for me) aside: a few years ago I went for an interview with a start-up to do a small amount of contracting. When I turned up I recognised the interviewer's face: it was someone I had interviewed many years earlier for a graduate job. We chatted for a while, and he smirked as he handed over a programming test. It was the same one I had given him all those years ago.
Needless to say, I passed.
The rhetoric is aimed squarely at working/lower middle-class voters, rather than urbane middle-class journalists, and is proto-Thatcherite, but also cognisant of equality of opportunity for all.
I suspect none of that is an accident.
Labour might as well split now - everyone thinks they are already......
And a decision soon on airport capacity. Interesting she avoided saying 'Heathrow' ?
Everyone else is too busy working.
PM promise to enhance workers rights heard in silence
However, I feel delivery is going to prove tricky and she is setting herself an incredibly high bar here across the piece, not just on Brexit!
May attack on Labour over NHS sacred cow
Shifting the nasty party tag to Labour could be extremely powerful if it sticks. Labour and the way it's run could easily make it stick, they aren't helping themselves right now.
It's another centre ground grab and why shouldn't she, the Conservative party is occupying the centre ground and has an opportunity to gain all of it as Labour continues to shift further to the left and the Lib Dems continue to struggle. She is continuing Cameron's one nation tory vision but she has a few different ideas on how to go about it.
This is the problem for Labour, even if they make it back to the common ground of UK politics, they'll find the Tories are dug in there
Regarding the headlines this morning, I guess that will mean the 2 million or so previous Lib Dem voters who voted Conservative in 2015 to keep out Labout and the SNP, will now have gone back to the Lib Dems, this is what is probably showing in the local by elections.
Someone rang me and stopped my live feed.
* - Except for one disparaging point about international people not belonging anywhere.
A rare bum note.
And both need to be done IMHO if we're serious about becoming a global trading hub.
Just joking of course. I'm only really following headlines but some of the immigration stuff doesn't seem entirely tactful.