Interesting discussion. My original point was not so much - are these really JAMs? But the fact that they self-identify as such, which will be bad news for May. If being only one illness away from penury is one of the criteria, then huge swathes of the population fall into this one (although I note that the 100K people in DM article had illness income protection).
As another aside it seemed incredible to me that it cost them £1400 for a week's camping in Cornwall. It's been a few years since I camped, but that seems astonishing. Yuppie yurts?
£1400 for a week of camping is bloody expensive.
Last time I went, about eight years ago, it was £8 a night somewhere in Wales.
Perhaps your mate is just sick of hearing your prejudice based mewlings.
Or maybe because what people see and feel in everyday life is completely contradictory to the "evidence" written by people in ivory towers?
The chances are that what people see and feel in everyday life around them is a small part of the whole story. The evidence is much more likely to represent reality as a totality (or at least it should).
The 100K couple in DM (sorry I keep going on about them don't I? :-) ) also moaned about "peer pressure" at the school gates over fancy holidays and expensive new cars.
Having gained independence, why would any Scot want the country's pensioners to be at the mercy of the whims of a foreign government?
Going by this thread, yes. They also want British citizenship as well, apparently.
You halfwit we are British citizens
Post independence?
I am sure there would be choice , and likely dual citizenship like Eire. Worst case I could chose to remain British.
Worst case you could choose to remain British by opting against being Scottish. If you're going to do that, why go independent?
Looking up the answer to my question it seems that was the choice for Czechs/Slovaks - a forced choice of one or the other.
It is still a choice , not 100% will want independence. However given precedent on Eire it would seem logical that dual citizenship would be an option , see TUD's earlier post. They are not going to change current rules just to spite a few Scots are they.
Perhaps your mate is just sick of hearing your prejudice based mewlings.
Or maybe because what people see and feel in everyday life is completely contradictory to the "evidence" written by people in ivory towers?
I've recently realised how lucky I am to have a very socio-economically diverse group of family, friends and colleagues. It doesn't half help to keep me on the political common ground.
Interesting discussion. My original point was not so much - are these really JAMs? But the fact that they self-identify as such, which will be bad news for May. If being only one illness away from penury is one of the criteria, then huge swathes of the population fall into this one (although I note that the 100K people in DM article had illness income protection).
As another aside it seemed incredible to me that it cost them £1400 for a week's camping in Cornwall. It's been a few years since I camped, but that seems astonishing. Yuppie yurts?
£1400 for a week of camping is bloody expensive.
Last time I went, about eight years ago, it was £8 a night somewhere in Wales.
£40pn when we went in Devon!
Blimey, things have changed (or maybe Wales is still cheap?). Still no where near £1400.
The £100k a year people are NOT Jams. They can piss OFF.
One out of the four could be counted, rest are just greedy whingers.
Friends of ours are what I would call genuine JAMs; they have a reasonable lifestyle, but wonder whether they can afford to have and raise a second child. They do not have many savings and a heavyish mortgage. As he put it to me this week: "We're only one illness away from being in the sh*t."
They're not exactly conspicuous spenders, either.
Sure lots are but from those four sets and the choices they have made , only one could be considered JAMS. I have little savings , heavyish mortgage, wife does not work, etc but doubt anyone would have consider me a JAM given my income.
wrong when people work so hard and yet struggle to make progress.
Ever considered the impact of 300k young immigrants added to the UK each year, on housing costs and wage/salary rates?
Yes. The academic evidence as opposed to your bar room anec-bollocks, is: limited.
Sorry.
Anecdote on PB has been a better gauge of real life than academic studies and polls for the last few years. Dismiss it at your peril.
No it hasn't.
There's a greater tolerance for right wing dissent on here, for sure, which is helpful for questioning the soft left, elite consensus.
But I prefer fact to fiction, thanks, with the proviso that one is always open to new evidence.
The arrogance of posts like this are exactly why I am pleased we haven't gone down the 'evidence based policy technocracy' that a good mate of mine keeps whining about.
So you prefer "non-evidence based policy idiocracy" ?
No, I prefer democracy where views are respected. Not shouted down and definitely not shut out.
A technocracy can still be democratic. The Key administration in NZ might be a good example.
What you really mean though is that you want PB to be safe space for a post-truth daily mail consensus.
So you prefer "non-evidence based policy idiocracy" ?
No, I prefer democracy where views are respected. Not shouted down and definitely not shut out.
But surely some views are unworthy of respect?
Not sure about this. Respecting the views of someone is not the same as endorsing them. Current liberal thought often smells a lot like it doesn't respect either views outside of the mainstream, or the people espousing them. At all.
Perhaps your mate is just sick of hearing your prejudice based mewlings.
Or maybe because what people see and feel in everyday life is completely contradictory to the "evidence" written by people in ivory towers?
The chances are that what people see and feel in everyday life around them is a small part of the whole story. The evidence is much more likely to represent reality as a totality (or at least it should).
Again, that's part of the point. In the country as a whole immigration might be beneficial, especially taking into account highly skilled migrants that come to London or Edinburgh to work in finance or creative industries, but in parts of England and Wales there is undoubtedly a negative effect which people, especially those who campaigned for remain, dismissed at their own peril.
Interesting discussion. My original point was not so much - are these really JAMs? But the fact that they self-identify as such, which will be bad news for May. If being only one illness away from penury is one of the criteria, then huge swathes of the population fall into this one (although I note that the 100K people in DM article had illness income protection).
As another aside it seemed incredible to me that it cost them £1400 for a week's camping in Cornwall. It's been a few years since I camped, but that seems astonishing. Yuppie yurts?
£1400 for a week of camping is bloody expensive.
Last time I went, about eight years ago, it was £8 a night somewhere in Wales.
£40pn when we went in Devon!
Glamping, surely?
We paid £3 pppn in Cornwall a few years ago....
Unless I am really out of the loop on the camping scene?
Isn't the French Presidential system the same one Conservative MPs use to narrow the field down to the final two for the membership - well, not that they did that this time choosing May more or less by popular acclamation or the self-destruction of Leadsom or the assassination of Johnson by Gove etc -.
This was the system that knocked out Portillo by one vote in 2001 and put IDS in the last two.
Perhaps David would like to defend that as well.
Elsewhere, so Fidel is no more. He's an extraordinary figure - in some respects, the Mao or Stalin of the western hemisphere yet less so in others. His passing and I suspect Raul will soon follow offers huge possibilities and potential for Cuba.
I sense from those who have visited a huge energy on the island and if that can be channelled into something constructive Cuba could well be one of the big success stories of the next 30-40 years. Let's hope so.
Interesting discussion. My original point was not so much - are these really JAMs? But the fact that they self-identify as such, which will be bad news for May. If being only one illness away from penury is one of the criteria, then huge swathes of the population fall into this one (although I note that the 100K people in DM article had illness income protection).
As another aside it seemed incredible to me that it cost them £1400 for a week's camping in Cornwall. It's been a few years since I camped, but that seems astonishing. Yuppie yurts?
£1400 for a week of camping is bloody expensive.
Last time I went, about eight years ago, it was £8 a night somewhere in Wales.
£40pn when we went in Devon!
Glamping, surely?
We paid £3 pppn in Cornwall a few years ago....
Unless I am really out of the loop on the camping scene?
The £100k a year people are NOT Jams. They can piss OFF.
One out of the four could be counted, rest are just greedy whingers.
Friends of ours are what I would call genuine JAMs; they have a reasonable lifestyle, but wonder whether they can afford to have and raise a second child. They do not have many savings and a heavyish mortgage. As he put it to me this week: "We're only one illness away from being in the sh*t."
They're not exactly conspicuous spenders, either.
Sure lots are but from those four sets and the choices they have made , only one could be considered JAMS. I have little savings , heavyish mortgage, wife does not work, etc but doubt anyone would have consider me a JAM given my income.
wrong when people work so hard and yet struggle to make progress.
Ever considered the impact of 300k young immigrants added to the UK each year, on housing costs and wage/salary rates?
Yes. The academic evidence as opposed to your bar room anec-bollocks, is: limited.
Sorry.
Anecdote on PB has been a better gauge of real life than academic studies and polls for the last few years. Dismiss it at your peril.
No it hasn't.
There's a greater tolerance for right wing dissent on here, for sure, which is helpful for questioning the soft left, elite consensus.
But I prefer fact to fiction, thanks, with the proviso that one is always open to new evidence.
The arrogance of posts like this are exactly why I am pleased we haven't gone down the 'evidence based policy technocracy' that a good mate of mine keeps whining about.
So you prefer "non-evidence based policy idiocracy" ?
No, I prefer democracy where views are respected. Not shouted down and definitely not shut out.
A technocracy can still be democratic. The Key administration in NZ might be a good example.
What you really mean though is that you want PB to be safe space for a post-truth daily mail consensus.
Thankfully that hasn't happened yet.
Amazing how the first sign of disagreement and the 'liberals' start talking about a construct of their own making which is highly illiberal.
Perhaps your mate is just sick of hearing your prejudice based mewlings.
Or maybe because what people see and feel in everyday life is completely contradictory to the "evidence" written by people in ivory towers?
Who are these people? After your traitor remarks recently, you've really gone off the boil.
YS shows all of the traits of one, I'm just pointing it out. He has previously said he wants the nation to suffer after leaving and for the EU to prosper.
Those people are the ones who drove the leave victory. It's like your sidr have learned absolutely nothing over the last few months.
Interesting discussion. My original point was not so much - are these really JAMs? But the fact that they self-identify as such, which will be bad news for May. If being only one illness away from penury is one of the criteria, then huge swathes of the population fall into this one (although I note that the 100K people in DM article had illness income protection).
As another aside it seemed incredible to me that it cost them £1400 for a week's camping in Cornwall. It's been a few years since I camped, but that seems astonishing. Yuppie yurts?
£1400 for a week of camping is bloody expensive.
Last time I went, about eight years ago, it was £8 a night somewhere in Wales.
£40pn when we went in Devon!
Glamping, surely?
We paid £3 pppn in Cornwall a few years ago....
Unless I am really out of the loop on the camping scene?
So you prefer "non-evidence based policy idiocracy" ?
No, I prefer democracy where views are respected. Not shouted down and definitely not shut out.
But surely some views are unworthy of respect?
Not sure about this. Respecting the views of someone is not the same as endorsing them. Current liberal thought often smells a lot like it doesn't respect either views outside of the mainstream, or the people espousing them. At all.
Not in my opinion. For instance, I neither endorse Leadsom's remarks in her infamous interview, nor do I respect them.
Interesting discussion. My original point was not so much - are these really JAMs? But the fact that they self-identify as such, which will be bad news for May. If being only one illness away from penury is one of the criteria, then huge swathes of the population fall into this one (although I note that the 100K people in DM article had illness income protection).
As another aside it seemed incredible to me that it cost them £1400 for a week's camping in Cornwall. It's been a few years since I camped, but that seems astonishing. Yuppie yurts?
£1400 for a week of camping is bloody expensive.
Last time I went, about eight years ago, it was £8 a night somewhere in Wales.
£40pn when we went in Devon!
Glamping, surely?
We paid £3 pppn in Cornwall a few years ago....
Unless I am really out of the loop on the camping scene?
» show previous quotes Pensions don't 'accrue' - they are paid out of current revenue - so there are no 'pensions accrued in the UK' for the Scottish Government to pay to Scottish Pensioners. Looks like its ers.
Exactly it would be handled in an adult fashion unlike the mince that Carlotta keeps peddling. Hopefully her shift will end soon and Scott will be on with his tweets, who would ever have thought you could look forward to that.
The Scottish government will surely enjoy it's four months of pensions payments already paid for after independence. After that I assume it'll start paying for them itself?
Fact we do not need to fund Westminster will mean we will be rolling in it , Trident rent will cover pensions.
The money we spend already is not spent in Scotland, we are funding elsewhere, our spending would triple immediately for no increase.
Care to share your thinking and figures for that?
Simple fact is we pay a share prorata per population and a fraction of that is spent in Scotland, whereas a shedload is spent in England. Numbers are asy to find if you are interested and further cuts planned.
Means nothing , someone has made some guesses on UK income. There is no Scottish state and no Scottish GDP. We are a subset of teh UK and it cannot be accurately extrapolated in any decent way shape or form. If you take a prorata based on population which is still a guess , we get a fraction of the amount we contribute to military spending come back and be spent in Scotland.
I think that is quite a hard argument with the carriers being built in Rosyth and the nuclear subs based at Faslane. We probably do alright out of defence spending at the moment although I accept the latest base closures are going to hit pretty hard. Not sure what Arbroath is going to do without Condor for example.
Perhaps your mate is just sick of hearing your prejudice based mewlings.
Or maybe because what people see and feel in everyday life is completely contradictory to the "evidence" written by people in ivory towers?
The chances are that what people see and feel in everyday life around them is a small part of the whole story. The evidence is much more likely to represent reality as a totality (or at least it should).
Again, that's part of the point. In the country as a whole immigration might be beneficial, especially taking into account highly skilled migrants that come to London or Edinburgh to work in finance or creative industries, but in parts of England and Wales there is undoubtedly a negative effect which people, especially those who campaigned for remain, dismissed at their own peril.
Agree on this but there is next to no evidence that the effect has been negative to anyone - economically at least.
The real "harm" in my view has been the sense of cultural dislocation of very large volumes of migration. You can't quantify this, but it's a real thing. And yes, it was dismissed for too long as racism by some, to ultimately terrible effect.
The £100k a year people are NOT Jams. They can piss OFF.
One out of the four could be counted, rest are just greedy whingers.
Friends of ours are what I would call genuine JAMs; they have a reasonable lifestyle, but wonder whether they can afford to have and raise a second child. They do not have many savings and a heavyish mortgage. As he put it to me this week: "We're only one illness away from being in the sh*t."
They're not exactly conspicuous spenders, either.
Sure lots are but from those four sets and the choices they have made , only one could be considered JAMS. I have little savings , heavyish mortgage, wife does not work, etc but doubt anyone would have consider me a JAM given my income.
wrong when people work so hard and yet struggle to make progress.
Ever considered the impact of 300k young immigrants added to the UK each year, on housing costs and wage/salary rates?
Yes. The academic evidence as opposed to your bar room anec-bollocks, is: limited.
Sorry.
Anecdote on PB has been a better gauge of real life than academic studies and polls for the last few years. Dismiss it at your peril.
The arrogance of posts like this are exactly why I am pleased we haven't gone down the 'evidence based policy technocracy' that a good mate of mine keeps whining about.
So you prefer "non-evidence based policy idiocracy" ?
No, I prefer democracy where views are respected. Not shouted down and definitely not shut out.
A technocracy can still be democratic. The Key administration in NZ might be a good example.
What you really mean though is that you want PB to be safe space for a post-truth daily mail consensus.
Thankfully that hasn't happened yet.
Amazing how the first sign of disagreement and the 'liberals' start talking about a construct of their own making which is highly illiberal.
It is impossible to disagree with someone who scorns fact as a basis for argument. We are, conceptually, not in the same dimension. You are better off discussing with a French post modernist. Or a three year old.
Italy Polls are giving +6% NO. I doubt many voters will tell pollsters "Hell yeah, I'm voting against the prime minister's plan" and then troop into polling stations and vote in favour of it, so NO looks good at 1.38.
Austria Poll scores are much closer: +3% Hofer. Hofer may not be a buy at 1.44. Does anyone know how the Turkish EU application is playing in Austria, in particular what BritGovTelecom the BBC are reporting as Recep Erdogan's threat to send a horde of migrants westwards, unshaven and with knives between their teeth?
Perhaps your mate is just sick of hearing your prejudice based mewlings.
Or maybe because what people see and feel in everyday life is completely contradictory to the "evidence" written by people in ivory towers?
The chances are that what people see and feel in everyday life around them is a small part of the whole story. The evidence is much more likely to represent reality as a totality (or at least it should).
Again, that's part of the point. In the country as a whole immigration might be beneficial, especially taking into account highly skilled migrants that come to London or Edinburgh to work in finance or creative industries, but in parts of England and Wales there is undoubtedly a negative effect which people, especially those who campaigned for remain, dismissed at their own peril.
So you want the tyranny of the minority?
There is no answer to this: we have to go where the weightier evidence points, but be willing to change direction if the weight of evidence changes. But sadly, all too often policy goes towards those who shout the loudest.
However there is a good point to be made: *every* policy change has winners and losers (or losers who don't gain as much as the winners). A problem is that too often, the losers are the same groups of people.
The £100k a year people are NOT Jams. They can piss OFF.
One out of the four could be counted, rest are just greedy whingers.
...
Sure lots are but from those four sets and the choices they have made , only one could be considered JAMS. I have little savings , heavyish mortgage, wife does not work, etc but doubt anyone would have consider me a JAM given my income.
wrong when people work so hard and yet struggle to make progress.
Ever considered the impact of 300k young immigrants added to the UK each year, on housing costs and wage/salary rates?
Yes. The academic evidence as opposed to your bar room anec-bollocks, is: limited.
Sorry.
Anecdote on PB has been a better gauge of real life than academic studies and polls for the last few years. Dismiss it at your peril.
The arrogance of posts like this are exactly why I am pleased we haven't gone down the 'evidence based policy technocracy' that a good mate of mine keeps whining about.
So you prefer "non-evidence based policy idiocracy" ?
No, I prefer democracy where views are respected. Not shouted down and definitely not shut out.
A technocracy can still be democratic. The Key administration in NZ might be a good example.
What you really mean though is that you want PB to be safe space for a post-truth daily mail consensus.
Thankfully that hasn't happened yet.
Amazing how the first sign of disagreement and the 'liberals' start talking about a construct of their own making which is highly illiberal.
It is impossible to disagree with someone who scorns fact as a basis for argument. We are, conceptually, not in the same dimension. You are better off discussing with a French post modernist. Or a three year old.
Not hard to disagree at all.
Just as it is not hard to disagree with someone who doesn't seem to understand the issue of data provenance, source bias and the dominance of the mainstream to the exclusion of dissent.
The problem is you cannot seem to accept any of those as possibilities. A huge blind spot, I'd say.
Perhaps your mate is just sick of hearing your prejudice based mewlings.
Or maybe because what people see and feel in everyday life is completely contradictory to the "evidence" written by people in ivory towers?
The chances are that what people see and feel in everyday life around them is a small part of the whole story. The evidence is much more likely to represent reality as a totality (or at least it should).
Again, that's part of the point. In the country as a whole immigration might be beneficial, especially taking into account highly skilled migrants that come to London or Edinburgh to work in finance or creative industries, but in parts of England and Wales there is undoubtedly a negative effect which people, especially those who campaigned for remain, dismissed at their own peril.
Agree on this but there is next to no evidence that the effect has been negative to anyone - economically at least.
The real "harm" in my view has been the sense of cultural dislocation of very large volumes of migration. You can't quantify this, but it's a real thing. And yes, it was dismissed for too long as racism by some, to ultimately terrible effect.
Not just cultural, an Eastern European worker who is part time is eligible for WTC, CTC, housing benefit etc... after just 90 days. The studies rarely take that into account and HMRC and the government have refused to breakdown the recipients of tax credits and housing benefits in their statistics releases.
AIUI this is the advice given in Romania, come and stay with a friend for 90 days with children, work part time in any job, be "evicted" by the friend after 90 days. The council is then liable to give that person housing, either in the private sector and provide housing benefit or in public housing, pushing everyone else down the list, they can also then claim working tax credit and child tax credit.
The other scam is "self employed" big issue sellers being eligible for all those benefits as well.
As much as I think the triple lock has to go, I'd like to know if Crabb was a dissenting voice in Cabinet when this was the policy of Cameron and Osborne:
As much as I think the triple lock has to go, I'd like to know if Crabb was a dissenting voice in Cabinet when this was the policy of Cameron and Osborne:
Poll-derived indications of Le Pen's score in R1 of the presidential election deserve no greater credibility than polling for the Republicans' R1 primary. Sure, a scandal could knock her out - that's true of any candidate - but other events that are in keeping with the flow of the times and that have a strong emotional impact could boost her chances a lot.
Interesting discussion. My original point was not so much - are these really JAMs? But the fact that they self-identify as such, which will be bad news for May. If being only one illness away from penury is one of the criteria, then huge swathes of the population fall into this one (although I note that the 100K people in DM article had illness income protection).
As another aside it seemed incredible to me that it cost them £1400 for a week's camping in Cornwall. It's been a few years since I camped, but that seems astonishing. Yuppie yurts?
£1400 for a week of camping is bloody expensive.
Last time I went, about eight years ago, it was £8 a night somewhere in Wales.
£40pn when we went in Devon!
Glamping, surely?
We paid £3 pppn in Cornwall a few years ago....
Unless I am really out of the loop on the camping scene?
The £100k a year people are NOT Jams. They can piss OFF.
One out of the four could be counted, rest are just greedy whingers.
...
Sure lots are but from those four sets and the choices they have made , only one could be considered JAMS. I have little savings , heavyish mortgage, wife does not work, etc but doubt anyone would have consider me a JAM given my income.
wrong when people work so hard and yet struggle to make progress.
Ever considered the impact of 300k young immigrants added to the UK each year, on housing costs and wage/salary rates?
Yes. The academic evidence as opposed to your bar room anec-bollocks, is: limited.
Sorry.
Anecdote on PB has been a better gauge of real life than academic studies and polls for the last few years. Dismiss it at your peril.
So you prefer "non-evidence based policy idiocracy" ?
No, I prefer democracy where views are respected. Not shouted down and definitely not shut out.
A technocracy can still be democratic. The Key administration in NZ might be a good example.
What you really mean though is that you want PB to be safe space for a post-truth daily mail consensus.
Thankfully that hasn't happened yet.
Amazing how the first sign of disagreement and the 'liberals' start talking about a construct of their own making which is highly illiberal.
It is impossible to disagree with someone who scorns fact as a basis for argument. We are, conceptually, not in the same dimension. You are better off discussing with a French post modernist. Or a three year old.
Not hard to disagree at all.
Just as it is not hard to disagree with someone who doesn't seem to understand the issue of data provenance, source bias and the dominance of the mainstream to the exclusion of dissent.
The problem is you cannot seem to accept any of those as possibilities. A huge blind spot, I'd say.
Oh, *now* you bring up methodological issues. Before you were simply down on fact.
Interesting discussion. My original point was not so much - are these really JAMs? But the fact that they self-identify as such, which will be bad news for May. If being only one illness away from penury is one of the criteria, then huge swathes of the population fall into this one (although I note that the 100K people in DM article had illness income protection).
As another aside it seemed incredible to me that it cost them £1400 for a week's camping in Cornwall. It's been a few years since I camped, but that seems astonishing. Yuppie yurts?
£1400 for a week of camping is bloody expensive.
Last time I went, about eight years ago, it was £8 a night somewhere in Wales.
£40pn when we went in Devon!
Glamping, surely?
We paid £3 pppn in Cornwall a few years ago....
Unless I am really out of the loop on the camping scene?
8 of us though!
In a one man tent
When I was walking into Knoydart once, I came across eight German lads who were camping in a large octagonal tent a little like a teepee, with a hole in the top to let smoke out from their fires. Never seen a mobile tent like it, before or after.
They were on their way to a scout jamboree somewhere, and spent lots of time swimming naked in streams. Somewhat alarmingly so.
As much as I think the triple lock has to go, I'd like to know if Crabb was a dissenting voice in Cabinet when this was the policy of Cameron and Osborne:
Hammond's announcement on the review of the triple lock was far and away the most politically important part of the Autumn Statement. Pensioner benefits cost nearly £100 billion every year and had we genuinely been "all in this together" these, along with other areas of Government spending foolishly ring-fenced by the Coalition, we would doubtless have seen some reductions.
The problem is the pensioners are the core Conservative support base. To go after these benefits would have been the epitome of biting the hand that feeds you. Conservatives know there is no power without the pensioner vote.
The other aspect to this is the rising cost of adult social care. Ask any council financial officer what their area of biggest budgetary pressure is and they will tell you it's adult social care and this has been highlighted to central Government by a cross section of Councils including Conservative-run counties whose budgets are buckling under these pressures.
Perhaps your mate is just sick of hearing your prejudice based mewlings.
Or maybe because what people see and feel in everyday life is completely contradictory to the "evidence" written by people in ivory towers?
The chances are that what people see and feel in everyday life around them is a small part of the whole story. The evidence is much more likely to represent reality as a totality (or at least it should).
Again, that's part of the point. In the country as a whole immigration might be beneficial, especially taking into account highly skilled migrants that come to London or Edinburgh to work in finance or creative industries, but in parts of England and Wales there is undoubtedly a negative effect which people, especially those who campaigned for remain, dismissed at their own peril.
Agree on this but there is next to no evidence that the effect has been negative to anyone - economically at least.
The real "harm" in my view has been the sense of cultural dislocation of very large volumes of migration. You can't quantify this, but it's a real thing. And yes, it was dismissed for too long as racism by some, to ultimately terrible effect.
Not just cultural, an Eastern European worker who is part time is eligible for WTC, CTC, housing benefit etc... after just 90 days. The studies rarely take that into account and HMRC and the government have refused to breakdown the recipients of tax credits and housing benefits in their statistics releases.
AIUI this is the advice given in Romania, come and stay with a friend for 90 days with children, work part time in any job, be "evicted" by the friend after 90 days. The council is then liable to give that person housing, either in the private sector and provide housing benefit or in public housing, pushing everyone else down the list, they can also then claim working tax credit and child tax credit.
The other scam is "self employed" big issue sellers being eligible for all those benefits as well.
Yep. Don't disagree. Our welfare system is not designed to deal with high volume immigration.
But that doesn't mean immigration is causing anyone economic harm.
And we all know - or should - that immigration are molto molto more likely to be in work and paying taxes than the rest of us.
Italy Polls are giving +6% NO. I doubt many voters will tell pollsters "Hell yeah, I'm voting against the prime minister's plan" and then troop into polling stations and vote in favour of it, so NO looks good at 1.38.
Austria Poll scores are much closer: +3% Hofer. Hofer may not be a buy at 1.44. Does anyone know how the Turkish EU application is playing in Austria, in particular what BritGovTelecom the BBC are reporting as Recep Erdogan's threat to send a horde of migrants westwards, unshaven and with knives between their teeth?
Great to have posts on actual political betting rather than remain/brexit willy waving.
Perhaps your mate is just sick of hearing your prejudice based mewlings.
Or maybe because what people see and feel in everyday life is completely contradictory to the "evidence" written by people in ivory towers?
The chances are that what people see and feel in everyday life around them is a small part of the whole story. The evidence is much more likely to represent reality as a totality (or at least it should).
Again, that's part of the point. In the country as a whole immigration might be beneficial, especially taking into account highly skilled migrants that come to London or Edinburgh to work in finance or creative industries, but in parts of England and Wales there is undoubtedly a negative effect which people, especially those who campaigned for remain, dismissed at their own peril.
Agree on this but there is next to no evidence that the effect has been negative to anyone - economically at least.
The real "harm" in my view has been the sense of cultural dislocation of very large volumes of migration. You can't quantify this, but it's a real thing. And yes, it was dismissed for too long as racism by some, to ultimately terrible effect.
ng, pushing everyone else down the list, they can also then claim working tax credit and child tax credit.
The other scam is "self employed" big issue sellers being eligible for all those benefits as well.
Yep. Don't disagree. Our welfare system is not designed to deal with high volume immigration.
But that doesn't mean immigration is causing anyone economic harm.
And we all know - or should - that immigration are molto molto more likely to be in work and paying taxes than the rest of us.
As Dylan said, pity the poor immigrant.
However the fact they are working and paying tax does not compensate us having to pay the locals who get benefits due to th eimmigrants having the jobs, ergo less immigrants and more locals forced to work would be a far better situation. Shangri la would be full employment and only enough immigration to take up any unfilled jobs. 3 million immigrants working does not fund 3 million locals parked on their butts.
Yep. Don't disagree. Our welfare system is not designed to deal with high volume immigration.
But that doesn't mean immigration is causing anyone economic harm.
And we all know - or should - that immigration are molto molto more likely to be in work and paying taxes than the rest of us.
As Dylan said, pity the poor immigrant.
Again, how do we know that it isn't causing economic harm. A part time worker receiving the full range of benefits will get far more out of the system than they will ever put in. That's before taking into account benefits in kind such as education for children and free healthcare.
As for working, its not really a massive difference. I have the figures and I'll look them up in a bit but I think EU employment is about 80% but Bulgaria and Romania is abut 78% vs 75% for UK nationals.
Perhaps your mate is just sick of hearing your prejudice based mewlings.
Or maybe because what people see and feel in everyday life is completely contradictory to the "evidence" written by people in ivory towers?
The chances are that what people see and feel in everyday life around them is a small part of the whole story. The evidence is much more likely to represent reality as a totality (or at least it should).
Again, that's part of the point. In the country as a whole immigration might be beneficial, especially taking into account highly skilled migrants that come to London or Edinburgh to work in finance or creative industries, but in parts of England and Wales there is undoubtedly a negative effect which people, especially those who campaigned for remain, dismissed at their own peril.
Agree on this but there is next to no evidence that the effect has been negative to anyone - economically at least.
The real "harm" in my view has been the sense of cultural dislocation of very large volumes of migration. You can't quantify this, but it's a real thing. And yes, it was dismissed for too long as racism by some, to ultimately terrible effect.
ng, pushing everyone else down the list, they can also then claim working tax credit and child tax credit.
The other scam is "self employed" big issue sellers being eligible for all those benefits as well.
Yep. Don't disagree. Our welfare system is not designed to deal with high volume immigration.
But that doesn't mean immigration is causing anyone economic harm.
And we all know - or should - that immigration are molto molto more likely to be in work and paying taxes than the rest of us.
As Dylan said, pity the poor immigrant.
However the fact they are working and paying tax does not compensate us having to pay the locals who get benefits due to th eimmigrants having the jobs, ergo less immigrants and more locals forced to work would be a far better situation. Shangri la would be full employment and only enough immigration to take up any unfilled jobs. 3 million immigrants working does not fund 3 million locals parked on their butts.
Except the quantity of jobs is never finite. More migrants equals more demand equals more jobs. In fact for areas like construction migration disproportionately boosts demand and thus jobs.
Say the population of the West is1 billion and that one in 10,000 people are famous. So there are 100,000 famous people alive in the West. Lets say that, on average, they live to 60, to account for those who die young. We should expect an average of about 4.5 celebrities to die each day.
As much as I think the triple lock has to go, I'd like to know if Crabb was a dissenting voice in Cabinet when this was the policy of Cameron and Osborne:
Hammond's announcement on the review of the triple lock was far and away the most politically important part of the Autumn Statement. Pensioner benefits cost nearly £100 billion every year and had we genuinely been "all in this together" these, along with other areas of Government spending foolishly ring-fenced by the Coalition, we would doubtless have seen some reductions.
The problem is the pensioners are the core Conservative support base. To go after these benefits would have been the epitome of biting the hand that feeds you. Conservatives know there is no power without the pensioner vote.
The other aspect to this is the rising cost of adult social care. Ask any council financial officer what their area of biggest budgetary pressure is and they will tell you it's adult social care and this has been highlighted to central Government by a cross section of Councils including Conservative-run counties whose budgets are buckling under these pressures.
Realistically though, due to the shredding of private pensions, most Britons will be soley dependent on the govt state pension. If people are to be expected to save for their own pensions, then we need a return to decent interest rates on savings and annuities. I don't think our JAMs and zombie housing market could cope with the borrowing side of that for the forseable future. So State pensions are going to need to stay liveable. That is Hammond's dilemma.
Perhaps your mate is just sick of hearing your prejudice based mewlings.
Or maybe because what people see and feel in everyday life is completely contradictory to the "evidence" written by people in ivory towers?
The chances are that what people see and feel in everyday life around them is a small part of the whole story. The evidence is much more likely to represent reality as a totality (or at least it should).
ampaigned for remain, dismissed at their own peril.
Agree on this but there is next to no evidence that the effect has been negative to anyone - economically at least.
The real "harm" in my view has been the sense of cultural dislocation of very large volumes of migration. You can't quantify this, but it's a real thing. And yes, it was dismissed for too long as racism by some, to ultimately terrible effect.
ng, pushing everyone else down the list, they can also then claim working tax credit and child tax credit.
The other scam is "self employed" big issue sellers being eligible for all those benefits as well.
Yep. Don't disagree. Our welfare system is not designed to deal with high volume immigration.
But that doesn't mean immigration is causing anyone economic harm.
And we all know - or should - that immigration are molto molto more likely to be in work and paying taxes than the rest of us.
As Dylan said, pity the poor immigrant.
However the fact they are working and paying tax does not compensate us having to pay the locals who get benefits due to th eimmigrants having the jobs, ergo less immigrants and more locals forced to work would be a far better situation. Shangri la would be full employment and only enough immigration to take up any unfilled jobs. 3 million immigrants working does not fund 3 million locals parked on their butts.
Oh god, another fallacy. It is tedious for me, and as Pulpstar pointed out it is tedious for everyone else.
Immigrants are not stealing our jobs, subsidised by in-work benefits or not.
What has happened is that we have preferred to import (relatively) skilled labour in favour of dealing with our own, very low-skilled population.
The result is not high unemployment, but low skilled folks being stuck in low skill and low wage jobs.
Yep. Don't disagree. Our welfare system is not designed to deal with high volume immigration.
But that doesn't mean immigration is causing anyone economic harm.
And we all know - or should - that immigration are molto molto more likely to be in work and paying taxes than the rest of us.
As Dylan said, pity the poor immigrant.
Again, how do we know that it isn't causing economic harm. A part time worker receiving the full range of benefits will get far more out of the system than they will ever put in. That's before taking into account benefits in kind such as education for children and free healthcare.
As for working, its not really a massive difference. I have the figures and I'll look them up in a bit but I think EU employment is about 80% but Bulgaria and Romania is abut 78% vs 75% for UK nationals.
You are not comparing like with like. We do not - mostly - import Romanian old age pensioners.
Poll-derived indications of Le Pen's score in R1 of the presidential election deserve no greater credibility than polling for the Republicans' R1 primary. Sure, a scandal could knock her out - that's true of any candidate - but other events that are in keeping with the flow of the times and that have a strong emotional impact could boost her chances a lot.
It's hard to imagine, given the revulsion with which the FN is held by the French Establishment, that there are any undisclosed skeletons in Le Pen's closet.
Apparently Castro was a "huge figure in our lives"
Maybe yours matey, maybe yours ...
C'mon, so Jeremy Corbyn isn't great with words and hasn't chosen absolutely the right ones in his eulogy. Fidel Castro was an exceptionally impressive figure. Of course things about the regime can be criticised, but slogans such as "200 million children sleep in the streets, and not one of them is Cuban" say a lot in Latin America. Maybe some British civil servants could call in the Cubans to sort out the NHS.
. Does anyone know how the Turkish EU application is playing in Austria, in particular what BritGovTelecom the BBC are reporting as Recep Erdogan's threat to send a horde of migrants westwards, unshaven and with knives between their teeth?
I don't know, but it is hard to see it as anything but good for Hofer.
There's trouble ahead for May if the Daily Mail are running articles questioning who is a JAM and finding some of them on £100K a year. If people self-identify like this, it will be most of the population and how on earth is May going to afford to make so many people better off?
The £100k a year people are NOT Jams. They can piss OFF.
One out of the four could be counted, rest are just greedy whingers.
Friends of ours are what I would call genuine JAMs; they have a reasonable lifestyle, but wonder whether they can afford to have and raise a second child. They do not have many savings and a heavyish mortgage. As he put it to me this week: "We're only one illness away from being in the sh*t."
They're not exactly conspicuous spenders, either.
Sure lots are but from those four sets and the choices they have made , only one could be considered JAMS. I have little savings , heavyish mortgage, wife does not work, etc but doubt anyone would have consider me a JAM given my income.
Yep, fair enough.
What annoys me is that our friends are strivers: she has a full-time job, whilst he looks after their son (I have to take part of the blame for that!) and does some contracting whilst their son naps. To make ends meet, they even take in lodgers in their spare rooms (usually students at language schools).
Yet they're still only just managing. Part of this is because they're in Cambridge, which can be an expensive place to live with a mortgage. But something's wrong when people work so hard and yet struggle to make progress.
for sure and it seems to be much more common in UK than others, something far wrong with the governing of this country.
See my post above.
Housing. Childcare. Commuting.
The U.K. triple whammy.
With regard to the first and last you are only really talking about SE England.
Apparently Castro was a "huge figure in our lives"
Maybe yours matey, maybe yours ...
C'mon, so Jeremy Corbyn isn't great with words and hasn't chosen absolutely the right ones in his eulogy. Fidel Castro was an exceptionally impressive figure. Of course things about the regime can be criticised, but slogans such as "200 million children sleep in the streets, and not one of them is Cuban" say a lot in Latin America. Maybe some British civil servants could call in the Cubans to sort out the NHS.
Have you been to Cuba? Do you really think that was anything more than a slogan?
Yep. Don't disagree. Our welfare system is not designed to deal with high volume immigration.
But that doesn't mean immigration is causing anyone economic harm.
And we all know - or should - that immigration are molto molto more likely to be in work and paying taxes than the rest of us.
As Dylan said, pity the poor immigrant.
Again, how do we know that it isn't causing economic harm. A part time worker receiving the full range of benefits will get far more out of the system than they will ever put in. That's before taking into account benefits in kind such as education for children and free healthcare.
As for working, its not really a massive difference. I have the figures and I'll look them up in a bit but I think EU employment is about 80% but Bulgaria and Romania is abut 78% vs 75% for UK nationals.
You are not comparing like with like. We do not - mostly - import Romanian old age pensioners.
I didn't say immigration causes harm, I don't think it does. I think unlimited unskilled immigration from eastern Europe does. The vote to leave is a symptom of that harm, whether or not you can see it or want to see it is irrelevant.
Amazingly the EU seems to have opened the door for transactional immigration with their payment for citizenship idea. If we can agree an annual few of around £3000 per migrant unskilled migration from Europe will come to an end.
Say the population of the West is1 billion and that one in 10,000 people are famous. So there are 100,000 famous people alive in the West. Lets say that, on average, they live to 60, to account for those who die young. We should expect an average of about 4.5 celebrities to die each day.
Given the exponential growth in the number of celebrities we'll have dozens every day before long. The culture will be overwhelmed with gratuitous mourning for nobodies.
Castro and Cuba was a rare example (unique?) of a socialist revolution going sort of half right .Most end up in absolute tyranny with misery for years (Mao 's Chin , North Korea etc).To that end Castro is remarkable in showing how some good things can be sustained from communist revolutions . The trouble with left win g revolutions is that all th epower ends up in the hands of 1 or a handful of people - most turn out to be just as greedy as anybody else and control freaks - Cuba was lucky Castro was not fully like this
Immigrants are not stealing our jobs, subsidised by in-work benefits or not.
What has happened is that we have preferred to import (relatively) skilled labour in favour of dealing with our own, very low-skilled population.
The result is not high unemployment, but low skilled folks being stuck in low skill and low wage jobs.
What happened to all the native unskilled building workers whose jobs are now being done by Poles, Romanians, Bulgarians, Lithuanians, etc.? If only there were stronger trade unions, and ones that were open on the same basis to everyone doing a job, whether immigrant or native, things would be much better. "Hello. Just in from Romania? Great. Here's your union card." The IWW wouldn't have stood for one group of workers being set against another.
Apparently Castro was a "huge figure in our lives"
Maybe yours matey, maybe yours ...
C'mon, so Jeremy Corbyn isn't great with words and hasn't chosen absolutely the right ones in his eulogy. Fidel Castro was an exceptionally impressive figure. Of course things about the regime can be criticised, but slogans such as "200 million children sleep in the streets, and not one of them is Cuban" say a lot in Latin America. Maybe some British civil servants could call in the Cubans to sort out the NHS.
Have you been to Cuba? Do you really think that was anything more than a slogan?
I suggest you read up about the 'Special Period'
For some on the Left, anything can be excused for a state-run health service.
Immigrants are not stealing our jobs, subsidised by in-work benefits or not.
What has happened is that we have preferred to import (relatively) skilled labour in favour of dealing with our own, very low-skilled population.
The result is not high unemployment, but low skilled folks being stuck in low skill and low wage jobs.
What happened to all the native unskilled building workers whose jobs are now being done by Poles, Romanians, Bulgarians, Lithuanians, etc.? If only there were stronger trade unions, and ones that were open on the same basis to everyone doing a job, whether immigrant or native, things would be much better. "Hello. Just in from Romania? Great. Here's your union card." The IWW wouldn't have stood for one group of workers being set against another.
Unskilled builders? I think you've confused us with the Jerries.
I very much hope it's a leftist v Marine Le Pen in the French election.
It would be a brilliant betting opportunity. And a Marine Le Pen victory would be another hammer blow for globalization & the EU.
People like this used to be rare on PB. Dark times.
Who exactly do you feel you're impressing with this daft 'standard bearer for rationality' claptrap. Not being able to see that fashionable views are just that, rather than infallible truth, indicates a very pedestrian, almost luddite way of thinking.
Michael Moynihan Pulled Armando Valladares's prison memoir "Against All Hope" from the shelf. First page is especially relevant today https://t.co/Ug9HwE8oER
Realistically though, due to the shredding of private pensions, most Britons will be soley dependent on the govt state pension. If people are to be expected to save for their own pensions, then we need a return to decent interest rates on savings and annuities. I don't think our JAMs and zombie housing market could cope with the borrowing side of that for the forseable future. So State pensions are going to need to stay liveable. That is Hammond's dilemma.
Not only his but any future CoE and indeed any Government.
We see some response in raising the retirement age but the ultimate endpoint is there will be no pension with people expected to plan for retirement from an early age and only stopping work when they can afford to (which may be never in many instances).
Michael Moynihan Pulled Armando Valladares's prison memoir "Against All Hope" from the shelf. First page is especially relevant today https://t.co/Ug9HwE8oER
Corbyn and Livingstone were big fans. No doubt McDonnell is too.
Apparently Castro was a "huge figure in our lives"
Maybe yours matey, maybe yours ...
C'mon, so Jeremy Corbyn isn't great with words and hasn't chosen absolutely the right ones in his eulogy. Fidel Castro was an exceptionally impressive figure. Of course things about the regime can be criticised, but slogans such as "200 million children sleep in the streets, and not one of them is Cuban" say a lot in Latin America. Maybe some British civil servants could call in the Cubans to sort out the NHS.
Have you been to Cuba? Do you really think that was anything more than a slogan?
I suggest you read up about the 'Special Period'
For some on the Left, anything can be excused for a state-run health service.
All in all everyone should be judged by their record and their results.
And here are the results of Castro, compared with the closest equivalents and neighbours, Dominican Republic and Guatemala:
GDP per capita.
Cuba: $5500
Dominican Rep.: $6500
Guatemala: $3100
Literacy rate.
Cuba 99.7%
Dominican Rep. 91.8%
Guatemala 79.3%
There is no data from Cuba about income inequality, you can make presumptions that is should be lower than other central american countries that hold the world record.
Dominican Rep. 45.7
Guatemala 55.1
Crime rate, homicides per 100k inhabitants.
Cuba 4.2
Dominican Rep. 17.4
Guatemala 31.2
Life expectancy
Cuba 79.1
Dominican Rep. 73.9
Guatemala 71.9
Overall it doesn't look bad, similar levels of economic development, with greater literacy, less crime, and longer longevity.
It should be a model for Central American countries, though probably not outside of that region and definitely not outside Latin America.
Castro and Cuba was a rare example (unique?) of a socialist revolution going sort of half right .Most end up in absolute tyranny with misery for years (Mao 's Chin , North Korea etc).To that end Castro is remarkable in showing how some good things can be sustained from communist revolutions . The trouble with left win g revolutions is that all th epower ends up in the hands of 1 or a handful of people - most turn out to be just as greedy as anybody else and control freaks - Cuba was lucky Castro was not fully like this
The case of Fidel Castro reminds me of the chinese proverb "Black cats, white cats, it doesn't matter as long as it catches mice", which was used by Deng Xiaoping to move China towards the black cat of capitalism.
Castro was certainly a black cat but compared with the rest of central america he did catch mice.
I think his system will outlast him, it already has outlasted the USSR by 25 years, it would probably end up like Vietnam, with a communist government and a mixed economic system.
All in all everyone should be judged by their record and their results.
And here are the results of Castro, compared with the closest equivalents and neighbours, Dominican Republic and Guatemala:
GDP per capita.
Cuba: $5500
Dominican Rep.: $6500
Guatemala: $3100
Literacy rate.
Cuba 99.7%
Dominican Rep. 91.8%
Guatemala 79.3%
There is no data from Cuba about income inequality, you can make presumptions that is should be lower than other central american countries that hold the world record.
Dominican Rep. 45.7
Guatemala 55.1
Crime rate, homicides per 100k inhabitants.
Cuba 4.2
Dominican Rep. 17.4
Guatemala 31.2
Life expectancy
Cuba 79.1
Dominican Rep. 73.9
Guatemala 71.9
Overall it doesn't look bad, similar levels of economic development, with greater literacy, less crime, and longer longevity.
It should be a model for Central American countries, though probably not outside of that region and definitely not outside Latin America.
Say the population of the West is1 billion and that one in 10,000 people are famous. So there are 100,000 famous people alive in the West. Lets say that, on average, they live to 60, to account for those who die young. We should expect an average of about 4.5 celebrities to die each day.
Given the exponential growth in the number of celebrities we'll have dozens every day before long. The culture will be overwhelmed with gratuitous mourning for nobodies.
Say the population of the West is1 billion and that one in 10,000 people are famous. So there are 100,000 famous people alive in the West. Lets say that, on average, they live to 60, to account for those who die young. We should expect an average of about 4.5 celebrities to die each day.
Given the exponential growth in the number of celebrities we'll have dozens every day before long. The culture will be overwhelmed with gratuitous mourning for nobodies.
Apparently Castro was a "huge figure in our lives"
Maybe yours matey, maybe yours ...
C'mon, so Jeremy Corbyn isn't great with words and hasn't chosen absolutely the right ones in his eulogy. Fidel Castro was an exceptionally impressive figure. Of course things about the regime can be criticised, but slogans such as "200 million children sleep in the streets, and not one of them is Cuban" say a lot in Latin America. Maybe some British civil servants could call in the Cubans to sort out the NHS.
Have you been to Cuba? Do you really think that was anything more than a slogan?
I suggest you read up about the 'Special Period'
For some on the Left, anything can be excused for a state-run health service.
When I was there, there was still a state run health system, which was essentially emergency medicine. Great for the immediate emergency care, but medications had to be paid with US $ by the patient - no dollars, no medicine.
All in all everyone should be judged by their record and their results.
And here are the results of Castro, compared with the closest equivalents and neighbours, Dominican Republic and Guatemala:
GDP per capita.
Cuba: $5500
Dominican Rep.: $6500
Guatemala: $3100
Literacy rate.
Cuba 99.7%
Dominican Rep. 91.8%
Guatemala 79.3%
There is no data from Cuba about income inequality, you can make presumptions that is should be lower than other central american countries that hold the world record.
Dominican Rep. 45.7
Guatemala 55.1
Crime rate, homicides per 100k inhabitants.
Cuba 4.2
Dominican Rep. 17.4
Guatemala 31.2
Life expectancy
Cuba 79.1
Dominican Rep. 73.9
Guatemala 71.9
Overall it doesn't look bad, similar levels of economic development, with greater literacy, less crime, and longer longevity.
It should be a model for Central American countries, though probably not outside of that region and definitely not outside Latin America.
This sort of post reminds me of when East Germany (DDR) overtook the UK's per capita GDP. Yeah, right.
Visit Cuba, look at their industrial and farming sector infrastructure and machinery, compare and contrast with the Dominican or Guatemala, then chose where you'd prefer to live. Hint, there is not much of anything in Cuba which is shiny.
I'm going through the list of cultural depictions of Castro, I'm amazed to find that Jack Palance portrayed him in the movie Che!
I'm more amazed that the americans did a movie about Guevara during the middle of the Cold War.
The best is the Cuban Soviet movie "I am Cuba". The original soundtrack is in Spanish and English (for the evil Americans), and the Russian dubbed version came with English subtitles, but if you listened carefully, you could still hear the Spanish/English. The English subtitles did not match the original soundtrack.
As far as Bush's Axis of Evil is concerned, it's three down, three to go.
I don't know if from that you meant there were six original members of the Axis, or three. The latter would be a much more interesting observation ...
Six to being with: Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Libya, Cuba. The Cuban, Libyan and Iraqi leaders are no more. Syria hangs in the balance.
Personally, I always (as a WMD guy) assumed it was Iraq, Iran and North Korea. And there have been leadership changes in all three, but nothing much has changed in terms of the threats they pose to international peace and security. Plus ca change ...
All in all everyone should be judged by their record and their results.
And here are the results of Castro, compared with the closest equivalents and neighbours, Dominican Republic and Guatemala:
GDP per capita.
Cuba: $5500
Dominican Rep.: $6500
Guatemala: $3100
Literacy rate.
Cuba 99.7%
Dominican Rep. 91.8%
Guatemala 79.3%
There is no data from Cuba about income inequality, you can make presumptions that is should be lower than other central american countries that hold the world record.
Dominican Rep. 45.7
Guatemala 55.1
Crime rate, homicides per 100k inhabitants.
Cuba 4.2
Dominican Rep. 17.4
Guatemala 31.2
Life expectancy
Cuba 79.1
Dominican Rep. 73.9
Guatemala 71.9
Overall it doesn't look bad, similar levels of economic development, with greater literacy, less crime, and longer longevity.
It should be a model for Central American countries, though probably not outside of that region and definitely not outside Latin America.
This sort of post reminds me of when East Germany (DDR) overtook the UK's per capita GDP. Yeah, right.
Visit Cuba, look at their industrial and farming sector infrastructure and machinery, compare and contrast with the Dominican or Guatemala, then chose where you'd prefer to live. Hint, there is not much of anything in Cuba which is shiny.
I have no record of the DDR overtaking the UK in GDP per capita, their peak was 2/3rds of the West German (in PPP) one in 1975 before going down hill.
Regardless, looking at the records I wouldn't like to even set foot in Guatemala much less living there, compared with Cuba.
All in all everyone should be judged by their record and their results.
And here are the results of Castro, compared with the closest equivalents and neighbours, Dominican Republic and Guatemala:
GDP per capita.
Cuba: $5500
Dominican Rep.: $6500
Guatemala: $3100
Literacy rate.
Cuba 99.7%
Dominican Rep. 91.8%
Guatemala 79.3%
There is no data from Cuba about income inequality, you can make presumptions that is should be lower than other central american countries that hold the world record.
Dominican Rep. 45.7
Guatemala 55.1
Crime rate, homicides per 100k inhabitants.
Cuba 4.2
Dominican Rep. 17.4
Guatemala 31.2
Life expectancy
Cuba 79.1
Dominican Rep. 73.9
Guatemala 71.9
Overall it doesn't look bad, similar levels of economic development, with greater literacy, less crime, and longer longevity.
It should be a model for Central American countries, though probably not outside of that region and definitely not outside Latin America.
This sort of post reminds me of when East Germany (DDR) overtook the UK's per capita GDP. Yeah, right.
Visit Cuba, look at their industrial and farming sector infrastructure and machinery, compare and contrast with the Dominican or Guatemala, then chose where you'd prefer to live. Hint, there is not much of anything in Cuba which is shiny.
I have no record of the DDR overtaking the UK in GDP per capita, their peak was 2/3rds of the West German one in 1975 before going down hill.
Regardless, looking at the records I wouldn't like to even set foot in Guatemala much less living there, compared with Cuba.
Well, I have travelled extensively in both. I'd chose Guatemala any day.
@ChukaUmuna: Interesting reading the Castro obituaries. In the end, I'm a democrat and find it hard to see past the fact he was a dictator.
Gone up in my estimation......
Yes, respect to the man. Is he up for deselection.
Good for him.
It's interesting to observe people on the left who over the last couple of weeks have lambasted Trump for things he has said or proposes to do, an in many cases their criticism is justified, then to see them turn a blind eye to much worse things done by Castro.
I'm going through the list of cultural depictions of Castro, I'm amazed to find that Jack Palance portrayed him in the movie Che!
I'm more amazed that the americans did a movie about Guevara during the middle of the Cold War.
The best is the Cuban Soviet movie "I am Cuba". The original soundtrack is in Spanish and English (for the evil Americans), and the Russian dubbed version came with English subtitles, but if you listened carefully, you could still hear the Spanish/English. The English subtitles did not match the original soundtrack.
I prefer Woody Allen's depiction of Fidel Castro, the part where he visits the USA for economic aid is actually true.
Castro did seek aid from America before being pushed away by the mafia, thus turning to the USSR for help.
I'm going through the archives of 1959 and 1960 now, losing Cuba to the communists was a monumental blunder of american foreign policy, Nixon could have kept Castro on the american side but the mafia was too demanding.
Comments
After your traitor remarks recently, you've really gone off the boil.
What you really mean though is that you want PB to be safe space for a post-truth daily mail consensus.
Thankfully that hasn't happened yet.
We paid £3 pppn in Cornwall a few years ago....
Unless I am really out of the loop on the camping scene?
Isn't the French Presidential system the same one Conservative MPs use to narrow the field down to the final two for the membership - well, not that they did that this time choosing May more or less by popular acclamation or the self-destruction of Leadsom or the assassination of Johnson by Gove etc -.
This was the system that knocked out Portillo by one vote in 2001 and put IDS in the last two.
Perhaps David would like to defend that as well.
Elsewhere, so Fidel is no more. He's an extraordinary figure - in some respects, the Mao or Stalin of the western hemisphere yet less so in others. His passing and I suspect Raul will soon follow offers huge possibilities and potential for Cuba.
I sense from those who have visited a huge energy on the island and if that can be channelled into something constructive Cuba could well be one of the big success stories of the next 30-40 years. Let's hope so.
Those people are the ones who drove the leave victory. It's like your sidr have learned absolutely nothing over the last few months.
Donald J Trump
Fidel Castro is dead!
There are many other examples as well.
The real "harm" in my view has been the sense of cultural dislocation of very large volumes of migration. You can't quantify this, but it's a real thing. And yes, it was dismissed for too long as racism by some, to ultimately terrible effect.
Fidel Castro's death raises an obvious question: Am I in the will?
https://t.co/HvENpunHfy
https://t.co/RbGnbQz1hE
#FidelCastro
Italy
Polls are giving +6% NO. I doubt many voters will tell pollsters "Hell yeah, I'm voting against the prime minister's plan" and then troop into polling stations and vote in favour of it, so NO looks good at 1.38.
Austria
Poll scores are much closer: +3% Hofer. Hofer may not be a buy at 1.44. Does anyone know how the Turkish EU application is playing in Austria, in particular what BritGovTelecom the BBC are reporting as Recep Erdogan's threat to send a horde of migrants westwards, unshaven and with knives between their teeth?
There is no answer to this: we have to go where the weightier evidence points, but be willing to change direction if the weight of evidence changes. But sadly, all too often policy goes towards those who shout the loudest.
However there is a good point to be made: *every* policy change has winners and losers (or losers who don't gain as much as the winners). A problem is that too often, the losers are the same groups of people.
Just as it is not hard to disagree with someone who doesn't seem to understand the issue of data provenance, source bias and the dominance of the mainstream to the exclusion of dissent.
The problem is you cannot seem to accept any of those as possibilities. A huge blind spot, I'd say.
AIUI this is the advice given in Romania, come and stay with a friend for 90 days with children, work part time in any job, be "evicted" by the friend after 90 days. The council is then liable to give that person housing, either in the private sector and provide housing benefit or in public housing, pushing everyone else down the list, they can also then claim working tax credit and child tax credit.
The other scam is "self employed" big issue sellers being eligible for all those benefits as well.
http://tinyurl.com/zlcaeee
It would be a brilliant betting opportunity. And a Marine Le Pen victory would be another hammer blow for globalization & the EU.
Before you were simply down on fact.
Welcome back to the world of rationality.
They were on their way to a scout jamboree somewhere, and spent lots of time swimming naked in streams. Somewhat alarmingly so.
The problem is the pensioners are the core Conservative support base. To go after these benefits would have been the epitome of biting the hand that feeds you. Conservatives know there is no power without the pensioner vote.
The other aspect to this is the rising cost of adult social care. Ask any council financial officer what their area of biggest budgetary pressure is and they will tell you it's adult social care and this has been highlighted to central Government by a cross section of Councils including Conservative-run counties whose budgets are buckling under these pressures.
"Nick Holland: Sigh.. Grosjean... despair... nothing a cattle prod & slap with a damp haddock wouldn't fix. Give some feedback man!" From BBC website
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38117068
Apparently Castro was a "huge figure in our lives"
Maybe yours matey, maybe yours ...
But that doesn't mean immigration is causing anyone economic harm.
And we all know - or should - that immigration are molto molto more likely to be in work and paying taxes than the rest of us.
As Dylan said, pity the poor immigrant.
Dark times.
As for working, its not really a massive difference. I have the figures and I'll look them up in a bit but I think EU employment is about 80% but Bulgaria and Romania is abut 78% vs 75% for UK nationals.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/26/fidel-castros-cuba-beacon-light-says-ex-london-mayor-ken-livingstone/
Another tyrant celebrated by Labour's leadership.
It is tedious for me, and as Pulpstar pointed out it is tedious for everyone else.
Immigrants are not stealing our jobs, subsidised by in-work benefits or not.
What has happened is that we have preferred to import (relatively) skilled labour in favour of dealing with our own, very low-skilled population.
The result is not high unemployment, but low skilled folks being stuck in low skill and low wage jobs.
We do not - mostly - import Romanian old age pensioners.
I suggest you read up about the 'Special Period'
Amazingly the EU seems to have opened the door for transactional immigration with their payment for citizenship idea. If we can agree an annual few of around £3000 per migrant unskilled migration from Europe will come to an end.
https://mobile.twitter.com/georgegalloway/status/802433434895290368
Pulled Armando Valladares's prison memoir "Against All Hope" from the shelf. First page is especially relevant today https://t.co/Ug9HwE8oER
Off to the match. . .
We see some response in raising the retirement age but the ultimate endpoint is there will be no pension with people expected to plan for retirement from an early age and only stopping work when they can afford to (which may be never in many instances).
Gone up in my estimation......
https://youtu.be/UZ7MuduzJL4
And here are the results of Castro, compared with the closest equivalents and neighbours, Dominican Republic and Guatemala:
GDP per capita.
Cuba: $5500
Dominican Rep.: $6500
Guatemala: $3100
Literacy rate.
Cuba 99.7%
Dominican Rep. 91.8%
Guatemala 79.3%
There is no data from Cuba about income inequality, you can make presumptions that is should be lower than other central american countries that hold the world record.
Dominican Rep. 45.7
Guatemala 55.1
Crime rate, homicides per 100k inhabitants.
Cuba 4.2
Dominican Rep. 17.4
Guatemala 31.2
Life expectancy
Cuba 79.1
Dominican Rep. 73.9
Guatemala 71.9
Overall it doesn't look bad, similar levels of economic development, with greater literacy, less crime, and longer longevity.
It should be a model for Central American countries, though probably not outside of that region and definitely not outside Latin America.
Castro was certainly a black cat but compared with the rest of central america he did catch mice.
I think his system will outlast him, it already has outlasted the USSR by 25 years, it would probably end up like Vietnam, with a communist government and a mixed economic system.
http://www.paulbogdanor.com/left/cuba/dictatorship.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/04/opinion/in-cuba-9240-victims-and-counting.html
Yet as your post points out, Cuba's story is interesting, and perhaps unique compared to other dictatorships.
http://www.theonion.com/article/report-32-percent-of-us-citizens-still-not-famous-1543
I don't know if from that you meant there were six original members of the Axis, or three. The latter would be a much more interesting observation ...
Cashing out now....
I'm more amazed that the americans did a movie about Guevara during the middle of the Cold War.
Visit Cuba, look at their industrial and farming sector infrastructure and machinery, compare and contrast with the Dominican or Guatemala, then chose where you'd prefer to live. Hint, there is not much of anything in Cuba which is shiny.
Regardless, looking at the records I wouldn't like to even set foot in Guatemala much less living there, compared with Cuba.
John Simpson"
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/11/cuba-really-like-fidel-castro/
It's interesting to observe people on the left who over the last couple of weeks have lambasted Trump for things he has said or proposes to do, an in many cases their criticism is justified, then to see them turn a blind eye to much worse things done by Castro.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/dakota-pipeline-protests/pipeline-protesters-decry-excessive-force-after-woman-s-arm-blown-n687326
Castro did seek aid from America before being pushed away by the mafia, thus turning to the USSR for help.
I'm going through the archives of 1959 and 1960 now, losing Cuba to the communists was a monumental blunder of american foreign policy, Nixon could have kept Castro on the american side but the mafia was too demanding.