I did wonder if perhaps the stories about a £50bn bill were because of crossed wires. Maybe £50bn is the amount of pork-barrelling it will take to get the repeal bill passed.
Boris would be a headache for Theresa May even if she wasn't in a precarious position herself. What to do about him? His performance as Foreign Secretary might charitably be described as in line with expectations; certainly he has only confirmed the widespread doubts about his seriousness. A powerful party leader would by now have called his bluff, but we don't have a powerful party leader. Meanwhile we could do with a Foreign Secretary who is not regarded as a joke or worse by the EU governments we need to do a deal with, and we could also do with a reshuffle which allows some new talent room to develop.
Go for it, Mrs May. I really don't think you've got much to lose at this stage.
We really dodged a bullet with Boris.
Can you imagine him as PM?
By contrast, I still wonder (with interest) what Michael Gove as PM might have been like.
It certainly wouldn't have been dull or lazy.
Boris Johnson is almost certainly the best choice for Prime Minister at present. The position requires very little administrative ability and a nimbleness about political positions that only he possesses is going to be required if anything is going to be salvaged from the Brexit wreckage.
His stint as Mayor was ideal training. Leave all the grunt work to bright underlings and personify the nation.
Do you really want to be personified by Boris?
He's sane, moderately amusing and capable of rational thought when he bothers. It would have the side effect of annoying the Eurocrats immensely in the short term, which would be worth it all by itself. And if he owned a problem rather than simply contributed to it, he would actually make an effort to solve it.
Cripes, is this your Eurosceptic side showing its colours once more?
Thank heavens, welcome back. You've been missed mate ;-)
I'm one of a handful of true Eurosceptics on the board.
If by "we" you mean the UK (as opposed to, say, the West), then there's not a lot we can do. The Type 45 destroyers are a bit poorly at the moment. At a push we could slap the US Marines' Harriers and the initial batch of the US & UK F35Bs on HMS Queen Elizabeth and send that off,
For a depiction in drama for an analogous occurrence, see:
If N Korea nukes the West coast of the USA Trump would nuke Pyongyang and the rest of the country within an hour leaving what we did irrelevant
The final settlement of the North Korea saga will be: they will keep their nuclear weapons and the US will gradually wean the Kim family to the riches of capitalism.
The US should blame themselves. North Korea has seen what happened to Saddam Hussain and Gaddafi. Kim does not want to die in a similar fashion unless one of his generals / soldiers do it for him.
(Snip)
Who is giving the North Koreans accelerated nuclear technology. Not China. Russia. For the same reasons as they are creating trouble in the west through soft technology. Russia gains from the instability.
"Who is giving the North Koreans accelerated nuclear technology."
NK received help from Russia and China in nuclear and missile tech at various times up to the 1980s, as they played them off against each other. Other players (such as AQ Khan and Pakistan) also helped later on.
But I have little doubt they've developed much of it themselves, from open sources. Rocket science is less rocket sciencey than it once was...
We know all that. But recently there has been talk of the extraordinary development of the technology and the speed with which they have achieved this.
Ukranian nuclear scientists have also been mentioned.
I really don't see why we can't just leave North Korea alone.
I think South Korea and Japan may see things differently but I agree they need to toughen up their own defences. South Korea has at least increased its warhead limit today
If N Korea nukes the West coast of the USA Trump would nuke Pyongyang and the rest of the country within an hour leaving what we did irrelevant
The final settlement of the North Korea saga will be: they will keep their nuclear weapons and the US will gradually wean the Kim family to the riches of capitalism.
The US should blame themselves. North Korea has seen what happened to Saddam Hussain and Gaddafi. Kim does not want to die in a similar fashion unless one of his generals / soldiers do it for him.
Once he has let it be known that he has the nukes and the Americans make secret overtures to him [ if they are not doing already ], a sort of stability will be restored.
Israel has the bomb. So does Pakistan and India. Was China in 1964 much different ?
Saddam Hussain was a nasty dictator, as was Gaddafi. Were they nastier than the Saudi royal family ? We seem to have a thing about Iran. It is far more educated and liberal than Saudi Arabia and actually helped put an end to ISIS who were sponsored by the Saudis and the Gulf states. [ who are our friends !!! ]
Ultimately, China will be the loser because they would not feel comfortable having a land border with a US client state.
Who is giving the North Koreans accelerated nuclear technology. Not China. Russia. For the same reasons as they are creating trouble in the west through soft technology. Russia gains from the instability.
Russia remains increasingly more influential on the foreign policy front than China despite China being far more influential than Russia on the economic from
Why not joint announcement by both sides? Looks like a railroading manoeuvre.
It's also utterly inappropriate and discourteous in the extreme for him to announce it like that. He's a bit player, not a Head of Government and he should remember that
Why not joint announcement by both sides? Looks like a railroading manoeuvre.
If I was Theresa May I would submit a written formal offer to all heads of state in the EU thereby putting it into the Council. Barnier and the commission are not in the same pay grade and need to be put back in their box.
There is a risk the 27 may turn down the approach but business and the voters throughout the EU will be drawn into the debate and it would receive Europe and World wide media cover
We know all that. But recently there has been talk of the extraordinary development of the technology and the speed with which they have achieved this.
Ukranian nuclear scientists have also been mentioned.
Linkys on the Ukrainian claims, please.
The speed has not been extraordinary. Their first nuclear test (which ISTR was a fizzle) was eleven years ago. They haven't progressed that quickly since then, at least on the nuclear side.
Remember the US developed both uranium and plutonium bombs in under four years (after a couple of years of very low-funded research). Russia got theirs in roughly the same time, although with the help of some espionage and the knowledge such weapons could work.
Rocketry might be a different matter, but again they've been working on that for yonks. Although one of the things that really matters on rocketry - the targeting systems - will not be easily visible from their tests.
We know all that. But recently there has been talk of the extraordinary development of the technology and the speed with which they have achieved this.
Ukranian nuclear scientists have also been mentioned.
Linkys on the Ukrainian claims, please.
The speed has not been extraordinary. Their first nuclear test (which ISTR was a fizzle) was eleven years ago. They haven't progressed that quickly since then, at least on the nuclear side.
Remember the US developed both uranium and plutonium bombs in under four years (after a couple of years of very low-funded research). Russia got theirs in roughly the same time, although with the help of some espionage and the knowledge such weapons could work.
Rocketry might be a different matter, but again they've been working on that for yonks. Although one of the things that really matters on rocketry - the targeting systems - will not be easily visible from their tests.
This has just come up from the Guardian "Suppose Kim fires a nuclear-armed missile at Guam or Japan, then the US hits two or three military targets in North Korea with nuclear bombs and sinks Pyongyang’s navy. A short, conventional war follows, destroying Seoul and most of North Korea. A shocked China accepts it has miscalculated badly and does nothing in response. That is probably the least destructive possible outcome of what would be the first nuclear attack since 1945. But what would it teach Russia and China? Practically, it would teach them that nuclear weapons can be used with successful geopolitical outcomes. Morally, it would teach them that nuclear annihilation is OK.” Attributed to Paul Mason.
Are South Korea and The US really going to send troops where they have recently dropped nuclear weapons?
Yes, most of the radiation used in the explosion would have a very short half life, hours or at most a day or so. After the initial burst, with radiation, then heat (think the surface of the sun) the combustion of oxygen and anything that could burn, shock wave doing severe damage at anything between 5 and 20 miles. Light from the flash causing blindness, temporary or permanent depending on which way you are facing.
We know all that. But recently there has been talk of the extraordinary development of the technology and the speed with which they have achieved this.
Ukranian nuclear scientists have also been mentioned.
Linkys on the Ukrainian claims, please.
The speed has not been extraordinary. Their first nuclear test (which ISTR was a fizzle) was eleven years ago. They haven't progressed that quickly since then, at least on the nuclear side.
Remember the US developed both uranium and plutonium bombs in under four years (after a couple of years of very low-funded research). Russia got theirs in roughly the same time, although with the help of some espionage and the knowledge such weapons could work.
Rocketry might be a different matter, but again they've been working on that for yonks. Although one of the things that really matters on rocketry - the targeting systems - will not be easily visible from their tests.
You might also like to read that article, and realise it's about rockets, not nukes.
It's also rather vague, and assumes the NK scientists are stupid. If SpaceX can design and manufacture a reliable rocket motor cheaply, so can any state nowadays.
That's why it is earthist to call the planet Earth; it should be called Water. Exoplanet researchers could then stop saying "we are looking for earth-like planets in the Goldilocks zone where liquid water is a possibility" and just say "we are looking for other Waters".
That's why it is earthist to call the planet Earth; it should be called Water. Exoplanet researchers could then stop saying "we are looking for earth-like planets in the Goldilocks zone where liquid water is a possibility" and just say "we are looking for other Waters".
A while back I read something about how planetary scientists had applied the tests they run for habitability of exoplanets against how the Earth would probably be seen from similar distances. From memory, they came out with something like 70% habitability.
We're also realising that primitive life might exist outside the Goldlicks zone. I mean, they've discovered that Pluto might have fricking geysers. How the heck can cold Pluto be active ... ?
Why not joint announcement by both sides? Looks like a railroading manoeuvre.
If I was Theresa May I would submit a written formal offer to all heads of state in the EU thereby putting it into the Council. Barnier and the commission are not in the same pay grade and need to be put back in their box.
There is a risk the 27 may turn down the approach but business and the voters throughout the EU will be drawn into the debate and it would receive Europe and World wide media cover
Only 1 country needs not to agree. What has Bulgaria, Romania have to gain from Brexit ?
Why not joint announcement by both sides? Looks like a railroading manoeuvre.
If I was Theresa May I would submit a written formal offer to all heads of state in the EU thereby putting it into the Council. Barnier and the commission are not in the same pay grade and need to be put back in their box.
There is a risk the 27 may turn down the approach but business and the voters throughout the EU will be drawn into the debate and it would receive Europe and World wide media cover
Only 1 country needs not to agree. What has Bulgaria, Romania have to gain from Brexit ?
You miss the point. By escalating the conversation to National Head's of State and the media interest in each Country would put the issue beyond Barnier and his technocrats and inject much wider public debate.
The arrogance of Barnier's statement that the UK needs educating and Andrew Marr's obvious annoyance that Barnier refused to be interviewed demonstrates how out of touch he is and how he does not want to be cross examined by the media
If the competitiveness of British sites is threatened, there is likely to be a long-term detrimental effect on Airbus’s future in the UK. “A rejection of the EU by the UK is perceived by many people in Airbus as a rejection of the values that underpin Airbus,” said the source.
“It would be foolish for Airbus to take work out and shut Broughton. But it doesn’t want to give the Europeans an excuse to marginalise the UK, and Brexit gives them an excuse.”
Perhaps a statement of an intention to withdraw from negotiations until Barnier and the two helpers are replaced?
A general rule of representation is that you only get to pick your own team, and the opposition pick theirs.
The EU27 have picked their team, defined their initial positions and demonstrated solidarity. It is not their fault that they are well organised and briefed, while we deploy Blackadders less competent cousin.
Why can't we bring Aung Sung Suu Kyi to the Hague for war crimes ?
Gordon Brown and John Bercow's fawning over her comes back to bite them.
The Nobel Prize needs taking off her
I'm swerving that way as well. I haven't been reading up on the Burmese situation recently: how much power does she have when compared to the Generals, and does she particularly care for the Rhohinga? (sp?)
If the competitiveness of British sites is threatened, there is likely to be a long-term detrimental effect on Airbus’s future in the UK. “A rejection of the EU by the UK is perceived by many people in Airbus as a rejection of the values that underpin Airbus,” said the source.
“It would be foolish for Airbus to take work out and shut Broughton. But it doesn’t want to give the Europeans an excuse to marginalise the UK, and Brexit gives them an excuse.”
Read the first part of the first sentence - also more project fear - it will not happen
Us and the USA have always sided with the baddies in the ME. Not to mention helping to create some of them. It's something I'm very ashamed of, and by and large I'm not ashamed of an awful lot in our history.
Agreed. Our records in the ME have been very poor and have been the cause of much of the modern strife.
FPT TSE said 'On topic, Votes of No Confidence are very rare.
I think we've had two in thirty-eight years, the last being in 1990.'
In the past I believe they were much more common. I seem to recall Thatcher tabling such votes on a pretty regular basis against the Callaghan Government. From memory, there was also such a Vote under the Major Government circa 1993 when one of the Maastricht rebels - Rupert Allason - abstained and had the Tory whip withdrawn. In practice, there is very little chance of such a vote succeeding , and I am sure that Oppositions have tabled them simply as a means of gaining headlines. I was surprised Miliband failed to do this during the Coalition years.
FPT TSE said 'On topic, Votes of No Confidence are very rare.
I think we've had two in thirty-eight years, the last being in 1990.'
In the past I believe they were much more common. I seem to recall Thatcher tabling such votes on a pretty regular basis against the Callaghan Government. From memory, there was also such a Vote under the Major Government circa 1993 when one of the Maastricht rebels - Rupert Allason - abstained and had the Tory whip withdrawn. In practice, there is very little chance of such a vote succeeding , and I am sure that Oppositions have tabled them simply as a means of gaining headlines. I was surprised Miliband failed to do this during the Coalition years.
The 1993 was a Vote of Confidence instigated by The Government, 1979 and 1990 were Votes of No Confidence instigated by The Opposition
It's hard to know what to think of May pulling out of that TV debate.
Had she gone, I think she'd have been outshone by Corbyn, and she might even have performed very poorly, and I'm not sure how that'd have been any better for her, since she'd have looked like she was being led by Corbyn in any event.
If you don't attend a public debate you (1) have something to hide or (2) you are taking the public for granted. Neither is a good look for a candidate. In Mrs May's case it was a bit of both.
But Dave managed it?
True. Cameron got away with it and that undoubtedly encouraged May to do the same. Thing is, Milliband is a poor public speaker while Corbyn turned out to be surprisingly good, while May, we know, is hopeless and Cameron can be good on his on-days.
I am surprised she failed to cite all her predecessors who declined a TV Debate - Douglas-Home - Wilson - Heath - Thatcher - Major - and Blair.
Why can't we bring Aung Sung Suu Kyi to the Hague for war crimes ?
Gordon Brown and John Bercow's fawning over her comes back to bite them.
The Nobel Prize needs taking off her
I'm swerving that way as well. I haven't been reading up on the Burmese situation recently: how much power does she have when compared to the Generals, and does she particularly care for the Rhohinga? (sp?)
I was last in Burma 15 years ago, on a medical mission. Burmese politics is certainly not transparent, but I do still follow it a bit. Indeed I was considering another trip there. The country has quite a strong nationalist core that sees the Military and Bhuddism as core parts of national identity, which is part of the reason so many of the frontier states are in various states of active rebellion. Some of these are seccessionist, some religious, some democrats and some are narcocrats. There are fairly large crossovers between these too.
Burma sees what Islamic fundamentalism has done elsewhere, including in the region, and responds in a characteristically heavy handed way. The Chinese influence is sympathetic, as the Chinese like both Burmese resources and also the access to the Indian Ocean.
The Burmese Generals are both brutal and cackhanded so may well turn the Rohingya into just the sort of Islamist force that it is not yet.
It is a part of the world where open criticism is seen as very rude and insulting, a place where speaking softly is much better received.
There was a good piece in the Times of India last week on the issues:
FPT TSE said 'On topic, Votes of No Confidence are very rare.
I think we've had two in thirty-eight years, the last being in 1990.'
In the past I believe they were much more common. I seem to recall Thatcher tabling such votes on a pretty regular basis against the Callaghan Government. From memory, there was also such a Vote under the Major Government circa 1993 when one of the Maastricht rebels - Rupert Allason - abstained and had the Tory whip withdrawn. In practice, there is very little chance of such a vote succeeding , and I am sure that Oppositions have tabled them simply as a means of gaining headlines. I was surprised Miliband failed to do this during the Coalition years.
The 1993 was a Vote of Confidence instigated by The Government, 1979 and 1990 were Votes of No Confidence instigated by The Opposition
Fair enough! An Opposition though does not really need an ecxuse to call such a Vote - as I say Thatcher did it several times in the late 70s. I think Callaghan also called one in 1980.
This is a contender for the vaguest post in the history of PB, but I need your help.
I'm sure there was a quote, possibly by either The Duke of Wellington or Horatio Nelson along the lines of 'If I'm upsetting France then I'm doing a good job.'
Could PBers help out if that quote exists, and what it was precisely?
It doesn't have much point to it coming from either of those, does it? It would be more amusing from someone like Douglas Haig.
Come to think of it, much more amusing, given the scope for scholarly debate whether he said "If I'm upsetting French then I'm doing a good job" or "If I'm upsetting the French then I'm doing a good job." He probably thought both.
Google managed to find a Wellington quote:
"We have been, we are and I trust we always will be, detested by the French.”
And from Mark Twain:
"France has neither winter nor summer nor morals—apart from these drawbacks it is a fine country"
And perhaps a quote from Hemingway that should be shown to our Brexit negotiators:
"Everything is on such a clear financial basis in France. It is the simplest country to live in. No one makes things complicated by becoming your friend for any obscure reason. If you want people to like you, you have only to spend a little money."
Why can't we bring Aung Sung Suu Kyi to the Hague for war crimes ?
Gordon Brown and John Bercow's fawning over her comes back to bite them.
The Nobel Prize needs taking off her
I'm swerving that way as well. I haven't been reading up on the Burmese situation recently: how much power does she have when compared to the Generals, and does she particularly care for the Rhohinga? (sp?)
I was last in Burma 15 years ago, on a medical mission. Burmese politics is certainly not transparent, but I do still follow it a bit. Indeed I was considering another trip there. The country has quite a strong nationalist core that sees the Military and Bhuddism as core parts of national identity, which is part of the reason so many of the frontier states are in various states of active rebellion. Some of these are seccessionist, some religious, some democrats and some are narcocrats. There are fairly large crossovers between these too.
Burma sees what Islamic fundamentalism has done elsewhere, including in the region, and responds in a characteristically heavy handed way. The Chinese influence is sympathetic, as the Chinese like both Burmese resources and also the access to the Indian Ocean.
The Burmese Generals are both brutal and cackhanded so may well turn the Rohingya into just the sort of Islamist force that it is not yet.
It is a part of the world where open criticism is seen as very rude and insulting, a place where speaking softly is much better received.
There was a good piece in the Times of India last week on the issues:
British Future has a survey showing that 86% want high-skilled immigration from the EU to stay the same or rise post Brexit (including 82% of Leave voters) but 64% of the public (including 50% of Remain voters) want low-skilled immigration from the EU to fall http://www.britishfuture.org/articles/immigration-consensus-after-brexit/
British Future has a survey showing that 86% want high-skilled immigration from the EU to stay the same or rise post Brexit (including 82% of Leave voters) but 64% of the public (including 50% of Remain voters) want low-skilled immigration from the EU to fall http://www.britishfuture.org/articles/immigration-consensus-after-brexit/
British Future has a survey showing that 86% want high-skilled immigration from the EU to stay the same or rise post Brexit (including 82% of Leave voters) but 64% of the public (including 50% of Remain voters) want low-skilled immigration from the EU to fall http://www.britishfuture.org/articles/immigration-consensus-after-brexit/
I am one of the 86% and I am one of the 64%
Indeed, it shows strong support for some form of points system
British Future has a survey showing that 86% want high-skilled immigration from the EU to stay the same or rise post Brexit (including 82% of Leave voters) but 64% of the public (including 50% of Remain voters) want low-skilled immigration from the EU to fall http://www.britishfuture.org/articles/immigration-consensus-after-brexit/
I am one of the 86% and I am one of the 64%
You can't satisfy the 86% while making the country unattractive to highly skilled people. The best thing to do would be to cancel Brexit, and look at structural economic changes to reduce the pull factors for low skilled workers.
British Future has a survey showing that 86% want high-skilled immigration from the EU to stay the same or rise post Brexit (including 82% of Leave voters) but 64% of the public (including 50% of Remain voters) want low-skilled immigration from the EU to fall http://www.britishfuture.org/articles/immigration-consensus-after-brexit/
I am one of the 86% and I am one of the 64%
You can't satisfy the 86% while making the country unattractive to highly skilled people. The best thing to do would be to cancel Brexit, and look at structural economic changes to reduce the pull factors for low skilled workers.
British Future has a survey showing that 86% want high-skilled immigration from the EU to stay the same or rise post Brexit (including 82% of Leave voters) but 64% of the public (including 50% of Remain voters) want low-skilled immigration from the EU to fall http://www.britishfuture.org/articles/immigration-consensus-after-brexit/
I am one of the 86% and I am one of the 64%
You can't satisfy the 86% while making the country unattractive to highly skilled people. The best thing to do would be to cancel Brexit, and look at structural economic changes to reduce the pull factors for low skilled workers.
You never give up. Brexit will happen. Get over it
British Future has a survey showing that 86% want high-skilled immigration from the EU to stay the same or rise post Brexit (including 82% of Leave voters) but 64% of the public (including 50% of Remain voters) want low-skilled immigration from the EU to fall http://www.britishfuture.org/articles/immigration-consensus-after-brexit/
I am one of the 86% and I am one of the 64%
You can't satisfy the 86% while making the country unattractive to highly skilled people. The best thing to do would be to cancel Brexit, and look at structural economic changes to reduce the pull factors for low skilled workers.
You can't reduce low skilled workers while you have free movement and we have not even had the transition controls on free movement from the new accession nations most EU nations imposed in 2004, thanks to Blair
British Future has a survey showing that 86% want high-skilled immigration from the EU to stay the same or rise post Brexit (including 82% of Leave voters) but 64% of the public (including 50% of Remain voters) want low-skilled immigration from the EU to fall http://www.britishfuture.org/articles/immigration-consensus-after-brexit/
I am one of the 86% and I am one of the 64%
You can't satisfy the 86% while making the country unattractive to highly skilled people. The best thing to do would be to cancel Brexit, and look at structural economic changes to reduce the pull factors for low skilled workers.
British Future has a survey showing that 86% want high-skilled immigration from the EU to stay the same or rise post Brexit (including 82% of Leave voters) but 64% of the public (including 50% of Remain voters) want low-skilled immigration from the EU to fall http://www.britishfuture.org/articles/immigration-consensus-after-brexit/
I am one of the 86% and I am one of the 64%
People who study this claim each immigrant creates very nearly one new job through trade and taxes. In other words immigration is nearly neutral on indigenous employment. However ... immigrants are overqualified for the jobs they do, or to put it another way they earn less. This means the indigenous population have jobs that pay higher than they would otherwise do. There are more managerial jobs, a higher proportion of permanent rather than temporary or part time jobs, thanks to relatively low paid immigrants.
I am not claiming this as an argument for more immigration, but simply to point out of it is more complex than skilled immigration good; unskilled bad. If anything, it's better to move up the value chain and buy in the unskilled labour.
It's hard to know what to think of May pulling out of that TV debate.
Had she gone, I think she'd have been outshone by Corbyn, and she might even have performed very poorly, and I'm not sure how that'd have been any better for her, since she'd have looked like she was being led by Corbyn in any event.
If you don't attend a public debate you (1) have something to hide or (2) you are taking the public for granted. Neither is a good look for a candidate. In Mrs May's case it was a bit of both.
But Dave managed it?
True. Cameron got away with it and that undoubtedly encouraged May to do the same. Thing is, Milliband is a poor public speaker while Corbyn turned out to be surprisingly good, while May, we know, is hopeless and Cameron can be good on his on-days.
I am surprised she failed to cite all her predecessors who declined a TV Debate - Douglas-Home - Wilson - Heath - Thatcher - Major - and Blair.
Cameron did do the 7 person ITV leaders debate in 2015.
He skipped the 2015 BBC debate - but crucially he also ensured Clegg missed it as well - and that neither Con or LD had any representative - so it was called an Opposition Leaders debate and Cameron's absence didn't become any big deal.
So very, very different to May not doing either leaders debate in 2017.
Cameron managed the situation perfectly and got away with it 100% - in complete contrast to May in 2017.
British Future has a survey showing that 86% want high-skilled immigration from the EU to stay the same or rise post Brexit (including 82% of Leave voters) but 64% of the public (including 50% of Remain voters) want low-skilled immigration from the EU to fall http://www.britishfuture.org/articles/immigration-consensus-after-brexit/
I am one of the 86% and I am one of the 64%
People who study this claim each immigrant creates very nearly one new job through trade and taxes. In other words immigration is nearly neutral on indigenous employment. However ... immigrants are overqualified for the jobs they do, or to put it another way they earn less. This means the indigenous population have jobs that pay higher than they would otherwise do. There are more managerial jobs, a higher proportion of permanent rather than temporary or part time jobs, thanks to relatively low paid immigrants.
I am not claiming this as an argument for more immigration, but simply to point out of it is more complex than skilled immigration good; unskilled bad. If anything, it's better to move up the value chain and buy in the unskilled labour.
I can see your argument but it is voter perception more than anything that wants to reduce unskilled immigration
British Future has a survey showing that 86% want high-skilled immigration from the EU to stay the same or rise post Brexit (including 82% of Leave voters) but 64% of the public (including 50% of Remain voters) want low-skilled immigration from the EU to fall http://www.britishfuture.org/articles/immigration-consensus-after-brexit/
I am one of the 86% and I am one of the 64%
People who study this claim each immigrant creates very nearly one new job through trade and taxes. In other words immigration is nearly neutral on indigenous employment. However ... immigrants are overqualified for the jobs they do, or to put it another way they earn less. This means the indigenous population have jobs that pay higher than they would otherwise do. There are more managerial jobs, a higher proportion of permanent rather than temporary or part time jobs, thanks to relatively low paid immigrants.
I am not claiming this as an argument for more immigration, but simply to point out of it is more complex than skilled immigration good; unskilled bad. If anything, it's better to move up the value chain and buy in the unskilled labour.
I can see your argument but it is voter perception more than anything that wants to reduce unskilled immigration
Because we have (and I am very supportive of this) a generous welfare state. Unskilled Labour is larger in number and lower in contribution to the treasury than high skilled immigration. It therefore can be a net detractor, and a competitor in the race for sometimes scarce public provison.
I am privileged, for as long as Mad Kim doesn't lob 100 Megatons my way, to live in the World's most beautiful country, as voted by Rough Guide readers.
I have never seen rice paddies in Scotland but obviously there's more to explore. Time to promote one of my favourite Twitter sites. A new corner of Scotland every day.
British Future has a survey showing that 86% want high-skilled immigration from the EU to stay the same or rise post Brexit (including 82% of Leave voters) but 64% of the public (including 50% of Remain voters) want low-skilled immigration from the EU to fall http://www.britishfuture.org/articles/immigration-consensus-after-brexit/
I am one of the 86% and I am one of the 64%
People who study this claim each immigrant creates very nearly one new job through trade and taxes. In other words immigration is nearly neutral on indigenous employment. However ... immigrants are overqualified for the jobs they do, or to put it another way they earn less. This means the indigenous population have jobs that pay higher than they would otherwise do. There are more managerial jobs, a higher proportion of permanent rather than temporary or part time jobs, thanks to relatively low paid immigrants.
I am not claiming this as an argument for more immigration, but simply to point out of it is more complex than skilled immigration good; unskilled bad. If anything, it's better to move up the value chain and buy in the unskilled labour.
I think that is the root of a lot of the discontent with immigration. Initially the migrants work in more menial jobs, with indigenous supervisors as you say, but within a few years the migrants are rightly promoted, or their kids are top of the class, and resentment builds.
British Future has a survey showing that 86% want high-skilled immigration from the EU to stay the same or rise post Brexit (including 82% of Leave voters) but 64% of the public (including 50% of Remain voters) want low-skilled immigration from the EU to fall http://www.britishfuture.org/articles/immigration-consensus-after-brexit/
I am one of the 86% and I am one of the 64%
You can't satisfy the 86% while making the country unattractive to highly skilled people. The best thing to do would be to cancel Brexit, and look at structural economic changes to reduce the pull factors for low skilled workers.
You never give up. Brexit will happen. Get over it
The landlord at my (new) local said to me "You need to move on and get over it. You are the worst Remoaner I have encountered."
I took that as a compliment of sorts. Brexit has already fucked over my life and it hasn't even happened as you said.
British Future has a survey showing that 86% want high-skilled immigration from the EU to stay the same or rise post Brexit (including 82% of Leave voters) but 64% of the public (including 50% of Remain voters) want low-skilled immigration from the EU to fall http://www.britishfuture.org/articles/immigration-consensus-after-brexit/
I am one of the 86% and I am one of the 64%
You can't satisfy the 86% while making the country unattractive to highly skilled people. The best thing to do would be to cancel Brexit, and look at structural economic changes to reduce the pull factors for low skilled workers.
You never give up. Brexit will happen. Get over it
The landlord at my (new) local said to me "You need to move on and get over it. You are the worst Remoaner I have encountered."
I took that as a compliment of sorts. Brexit has already fucked over my life and it hasn't even happened as you said.
To be honest Tyson I am sorry if you are disadvantaged by Brexit but I do wish the word remoaner was banned. Everyone has a right to their opinion without being labelled remoaner or Brexiteer
British Future has a survey showing that 86% want high-skilled immigration from the EU to stay the same or rise post Brexit (including 82% of Leave voters) but 64% of the public (including 50% of Remain voters) want low-skilled immigration from the EU to fall http://www.britishfuture.org/articles/immigration-consensus-after-brexit/
I am one of the 86% and I am one of the 64%
People who study this claim each immigrant creates very nearly one new job through trade and taxes. In other words immigration is nearly neutral on indigenous employment. However ... immigrants are overqualified for the jobs they do, or to put it another way they earn less. This means the indigenous population have jobs that pay higher than they would otherwise do. There are more managerial jobs, a higher proportion of permanent rather than temporary or part time jobs, thanks to relatively low paid immigrants.
I am not claiming this as an argument for more immigration, but simply to point out of it is more complex than skilled immigration good; unskilled bad. If anything, it's better to move up the value chain and buy in the unskilled labour.
I can see your argument but it is voter perception more than anything that wants to reduce unskilled immigration
Because we have (and I am very supportive of this) a generous welfare state. Unskilled Labour is larger in number and lower in contribution to the treasury than high skilled immigration. It therefore can be a net detractor, and a competitor in the race for sometimes scarce public provison.
When I vote for Brexit to stop immigrants undercutting my pay, they call me a patriot. However, when I #mcstrike for higher pay they call me a Communist...
I am privileged, for as long as Mad Kim doesn't lob 100 Megatons my way, to live in the World's most beautiful country, as voted by Rough Guide readers.
I have never seen rice paddies in Scotland but obviously there's more to explore. Time to promote one of my favourite Twitter sites. A new corner of Scotland every day.
I agree about the general wonderfulness of Scotland, but you're also cursed: the few days of summer you get are plagued with midges. In many parts there are just two seasons: the wet season and the bitten season.
Incidentally, if Mad Kim did lob a nuke your way, then that documentary 'Godzilla' showed the result: mutant radioactive midges who will become your overlords ...
British Future has a survey showing that 86% want high-skilled immigration from the EU to stay the same or rise post Brexit (including 82% of Leave voters) but 64% of the public (including 50% of Remain voters) want low-skilled immigration from the EU to fall http://www.britishfuture.org/articles/immigration-consensus-after-brexit/
I am one of the 86% and I am one of the 64%
People who study this claim each immigrant creates very nearly one new job through trade and taxes. In other words immigration is nearly neutral on indigenous employment. However ... immigrants are overqualified for the jobs they do, or to put it another way they earn less. This means the indigenous population have jobs that pay higher than they would otherwise do. There are more managerial jobs, a higher proportion of permanent rather than temporary or part time jobs, thanks to relatively low paid immigrants.
I am not claiming this as an argument for more immigration, but simply to point out of it is more complex than skilled immigration good; unskilled bad. If anything, it's better to move up the value chain and buy in the unskilled labour.
I can see your argument but it is voter perception more than anything that wants to reduce unskilled immigration
Because we have (and I am very supportive of this) a generous welfare state. Unskilled Labour is larger in number and lower in contribution to the treasury than high skilled immigration. It therefore can be a net detractor, and a competitor in the race for sometimes scarce public provison.
When I vote for Brexit to stop immigrants undercutting my pay, they call me a patriot. However, when I #mcstrike for higher pay they call me a Communist...
British Future has a survey showing that 86% want high-skilled immigration from the EU to stay the same or rise post Brexit (including 82% of Leave voters) but 64% of the public (including 50% of Remain voters) want low-skilled immigration from the EU to fall http://www.britishfuture.org/articles/immigration-consensus-after-brexit/
I am one of the 86% and I am one of the 64%
People who study this claim each immigrant creates very nearly one new job through trade and taxes. In other words immigration is nearly neutral on indigenous employment. However ... immigrants are overqualified for the jobs they do, or to put it another way they earn less. This means the indigenous population have jobs that pay higher than they would otherwise do. There are more managerial jobs, a higher proportion of permanent rather than temporary or part time jobs, thanks to relatively low paid immigrants.
I am not claiming this as an argument for more immigration, but simply to point out of it is more complex than skilled immigration good; unskilled bad. If anything, it's better to move up the value chain and buy in the unskilled labour.
I can see your argument but it is voter perception more than anything that wants to reduce unskilled immigration
Because we have (and I am very supportive of this) a generous welfare state. Unskilled Labour is larger in number and lower in contribution to the treasury than high skilled immigration. It therefore can be a net detractor, and a competitor in the race for sometimes scarce public provison.
When I vote for Brexit to stop immigrants undercutting my pay, they call me a patriot. However, when I #mcstrike for higher pay they call me a Communist...
The Tories support for the workers doesn't last very long, does it?
I was overjoyed to note that the Cambridge McStrike was at the Newmarket Road branch, which was on the site of the old Racehorse pub. The pub was a wretched hive of scum and villainy, and the McDonalds that replaced it wasn't much better. Although it might have improved since I stopped working a few yards away ...
As an utterly irrelevant anecdote, the speed with which the McDonalds went up was amazing. The pub was demolished just before I went away on a short walking holiday. I came back a couple of weeks later and the prefabricated building was up and almost open.
British Future has a survey showing that 86% want high-skilled immigration from the EU to stay the same or rise post Brexit (including 82% of Leave voters) but 64% of the public (including 50% of Remain voters) want low-skilled immigration from the EU to fall http://www.britishfuture.org/articles/immigration-consensus-after-brexit/
I am one of the 86% and I am one of the 64%
People who study this claim each immigrant creates very nearly one new job through trade and taxes. In other words immigration is nearly neutral on indigenous employment. However ... immigrants are overqualified for the jobs they do, or to put it another way they earn less. This means the indigenous population have jobs that pay higher than they would otherwise do. There are more managerial jobs, a higher proportion of permanent rather than temporary or part time jobs, thanks to relatively low paid immigrants.
I am not claiming this as an argument for more immigration, but simply to point out of it is more complex than skilled immigration good; unskilled bad. If anything, it's better to move up the value chain and buy in the unskilled labour.
I can see your argument but it is voter perception more than anything that wants to reduce unskilled immigration
Because we have (and I am very supportive of this) a generous welfare state. Unskilled Labour is larger in number and lower in contribution to the treasury than high skilled immigration. It therefore can be a net detractor, and a competitor in the race for sometimes scarce public provison.
When I vote for Brexit to stop immigrants undercutting my pay, they call me a patriot. However, when I #mcstrike for higher pay they call me a Communist...
British Future has a survey showing that 86% want high-skilled immigration from the EU to stay the same or rise post Brexit (including 82% of Leave voters) but 64% of the public (including 50% of Remain voters) want low-skilled immigration from the EU to fall http://www.britishfuture.org/articles/immigration-consensus-after-brexit/
I am one of the 86% and I am one of the 64%
People who study this
I am not claiming this as an argument for more immigration, but simply to point out of it is more complex than skilled immigration good; unskilled bad. If anything, it's better to move up the value chain and buy in the unskilled labour.
I can see your argument but it is voter perception more than anything that wants to reduce unskilled immigration
Because we have (and I am very supportive of this) a generous welfare state. Unskilled Labour is larger in number and lower in contribution to the treasury than high skilled immigration. It therefore can be a net detractor, and a competitor in the race for sometimes scarce public provison.
When I vote for Brexit to stop immigrants undercutting my pay, they call me a patriot. However, when I #mcstrike for higher pay they call me a Communist...
The Tories support for the workers doesn't last very long, does it?
86% of McDonald's workforce want zero hours contracts to remain.
The Tories want their government to control wages via central control of immigration,they do not like it when the workers decide to take that power for themselves. Corbyn is ahead of the curve on the #mcstrike. McDonalds is not the worst employer in the country, but it is a classical globalized force that relies on cheap labour.
I have no problem with ZHC when they are the workers choice*, but very often they are not, and are exploitative ways of making the workers subservient to their masters whims.
* I would suggest that ZHCs should only be permitted in unionised workplaces where the shop steward authorises it following discussion with the stakeholders, and the employee in particular.
British Future has a survey showing that 86% want high-skilled immigration from the EU to stay the same or rise post Brexit (including 82% of Leave voters) but 64% of the public (including 50% of Remain voters) want low-skilled immigration from the EU to fall http://www.britishfuture.org/articles/immigration-consensus-after-brexit/
I am one of the 86% and I am one of the 64%
People who study this
I am not claiming this as an argument for more immigration, but simply to point out of it is more complex than skilled immigration good; unskilled bad. If anything, it's better to move up the value chain and buy in the unskilled labour.
I can see your argument but it is voter perception more than anything that wants to reduce unskilled immigration
Because we have (and I am very supportive of this) a generous welfare state. Unskilled Labour is larger in number and lower in contribution to the treasury than high skilled immigration. It therefore can be a net detractor, and a competitor in the race for sometimes scarce public provison.
When I vote for Brexit to stop immigrants undercutting my pay, they call me a patriot. However, when I #mcstrike for higher pay they call me a Communist...
The Tories support for the workers doesn't last very long, does it?
86% of McDonald's workforce want zero hours contracts to remain.
The Tories want their government to control wages via central control of immigration,they do not like it when the workers decide to take that power for themselves. Corbyn is ahead of the curve on the #mcstrike. McDonalds is not the worst employer in the country, but it is a classical globalized force that relies on cheap labour.
I have no problem with ZHC when they are the workers choice*, but very often they are not, and are exploitative ways of making the workers subservient to their masters whims.
* I would suggest that ZHCs should only be permitted in unionised workplaces where the shop steward authorises it following discussion with the stakeholders, and the employee in particular.
We really are getting into control of the state by the hard left and the unions. If it happened it would end up in tears
British Future has a survey showing that 86% want high-skilled immigration from the EU to stay the same or rise post Brexit (including 82% of Leave voters) but 64% of the public (including 50% of Remain voters) want low-skilled immigration from the EU to fall http://www.britishfuture.org/articles/immigration-consensus-after-brexit/
I am one of the 86% and I am one of the 64%
People who study this claim each immigrant creates very nearly one new job through trade and taxes. In other words immigration is nearly neutral on indigenous employment. I am not claiming this as an argument for more immigration, but simply to point out of it is more complex than skilled immigration good; unskilled bad. If anything, it's better to move up the value chain and buy in the unskilled labour.
I can see your argument but it is voter perception more than anything that wants to reduce unskilled immigration
Because we have (and I am very supportive of this) a generous welfare state. Unskilled Labour is larger in number and lower in contribution to the treasury than high skilled immigration. It therefore can be a net detractor, and a competitor in the race for sometimes scarce public provison.
When I vote for Brexit to stop immigrants undercutting my pay, they call me a patriot. However, when I #mcstrike for higher pay they call me a Communist...
The Tories support for the workers doesn't last very long, does it?
I was overjoyed to note that the Cambridge McStrike was at the Newmarket Road branch, which was on the site of the old Racehorse pub. The pub was a wretched hive of scum and villainy, and the McDonalds that replaced it wasn't much better. Although it might have improved since I stopped working a few yards away ...
As an utterly irrelevant anecdote, the speed with which the McDonalds went up was amazing. The pub was demolished just before I went away on a short walking holiday. I came back a couple of weeks later and the prefabricated building was up and almost open.
British Future has a survey showing that 86% want high-skilled immigration from the EU to stay the same or rise post Brexit (including 82% of Leave voters) but 64% of the public (including 50% of Remain voters) want low-skilled immigration from the EU to fall http://www.britishfuture.org/articles/immigration-consensus-after-brexit/
I am one of the 86% and I am one of the 64%
People who study this
I am not claiming this as an argument for more immigration, but simply to point out of it is more complex than skilled immigration good; unskilled bad. If anything, it's better to move up the value chain and buy in the unskilled labour.
I can see your argument but it is voter perception more than anything that wants to reduce unskilled immigration
Because we have (and I am very supportive of this) a generous welfare state. Unskilled Labour is larger in number and lower in contribution to the treasury than high skilled immigration. It therefore can be a net detractor, and a competitor in the race for sometimes scarce public provison.
When I vote for Brexit to stop immigrants undercutting my pay, they call me a patriot. However, when I #mcstrike for higher pay they call me a Communist...
The Tories support for the workers doesn't last very long, does it?
86% of McDonald's workforce want zero hours contracts to remain.
The Tories want their government to control wages via central control of immigration,they do not like it when the workers decide to take that power for themselves. Corbyn is ahead of the curve on the #mcstrike. McDonalds is not the worst employer in the country, but it is a classical globalized force that relies on cheap labour.
I have no problem with ZHC when they are the workers choice*, but very often they are not, and are exploitative ways of making the workers subservient to their masters whims.
* I would suggest that ZHCs should only be permitted in unionised workplaces where the shop steward authorises it following discussion with the stakeholders, and the employee in particular.
God forbid workers should be subservient to their employers...
We haven't yet reached the point where McDonalds is an essential service. The staff should be allowed to take whatever industrial action they think fit to improve pay and conditions if they are dissatisfied.
We haven't yet reached the point where McDonalds is an essential service. The staff should be allowed to take whatever industrial action they think fit to improve pay and conditions if they are dissatisfied.
Agree entirely.
Though I do long for the days when we had a grown up opposition that didn't jump on every strike bandwagon going...
We haven't yet reached the point where McDonalds is an essential service. The staff should be allowed to take whatever industrial action they think fit to improve pay and conditions if they are dissatisfied.
Yep.
Although the one effect of this strike on me is that I really want a McD's burger - I haven't had one for two years ...
We haven't yet reached the point where McDonalds is an essential service. The staff should be allowed to take whatever industrial action they think fit to improve pay and conditions if they are dissatisfied.
Agreed. Although I do wonder how much of this is rabble rousing by the Opposition.
British Future has a survey showing that 86% want high-skilled immigration from the EU to stay the same or rise post Brexit (including 82% of Leave voters) but 64% of the public (including 50% of Remain voters) want low-skilled immigration from the EU to fall http://www.britishfuture.org/articles/immigration-consensus-after-brexit/
I am one of the 86% and I am one of the 64%
People who study this claim each immigrant creates very nearly one new job through trade and taxes. In other words immigration is nearly neutral on indigenous employment. However ... immigrants are overqualified for the jobs they do, or to put it another way they earn less. This means the indigenous population have jobs that pay higher than they would otherwise do. There are more managerial jobs, a higher proportion of permanent rather than temporary or part time jobs, thanks to relatively low paid immigrants.
I am not claiming this as an argument for more immigration, but simply to point out of it is more complex than skilled immigration good; unskilled bad. If anything, it's better to move up the value chain and buy in the unskilled labour.
I can see your argument but it is voter perception more than anything that wants to reduce unskilled immigration
Because we have (and I am very supportive of this) a generous welfare state. Unskilled Labour is larger in number and lower in contribution to the treasury than high skilled immigration. It therefore can be a net detractor, and a competitor in the race for sometimes scarce public provison.
When I vote for Brexit to stop immigrants undercutting my pay, they call me a patriot. However, when I #mcstrike for higher pay they call me a Communist...
The Tories support for the workers doesn't last very long, does it?
86% of McDonald's workforce want zero hours contracts to remain.
Also all this does is increase McDonalds pace of automation
The British worker is a salt of the earth patriot, until he/she decides to take action.
We see fairly quickly how it is just lip service and crocodile tears from the Tories over the plight of low paid workers. As long as they doff their caps to the Rees-Moggs of this world they are fine and dandy, when they start to ask why Rees-Mogg is so rich, they are treated as enemies of the state.
People who study this claim each immigrant creates very nearly one new job through trade and taxes. In other words immigration is nearly neutral on indigenous employment. However ... immigrants are overqualified for the jobs they do, or to put it another way they earn less. This means the indigenous population have jobs that pay higher than they would otherwise do. There are more managerial jobs, a higher proportion of permanent rather than temporary or part time jobs, thanks to relatively low paid immigrants.
I am not claiming this as an argument for more immigration, but simply to point out of it is more complex than skilled immigration good; unskilled bad. If anything, it's better to move up the value chain and buy in the unskilled labour.
I can see your argument but it is voter perception more than anything that wants to reduce unskilled immigration
Because we have (and I am very supportive of this) a generous welfare state. Unskilled Labour is larger in number and lower in contribution to the treasury than high skilled immigration. It therefore can be a net detractor, and a competitor in the race for sometimes scarce public provison.
When I vote for Brexit to stop immigrants undercutting my pay, they call me a patriot. However, when I #mcstrike for higher pay they call me a Communist...
The Tories support for the workers doesn't last very long, does it?
86% of McDonald's workforce want zero hours contracts to remain.
Also all this does is increase McDonalds pace of automation
The British worker is a salt of the earth patriot, until he/she decides to take action.
We see fairly quickly how it is just lip service and crocodile tears from the Tories over the plight of low paid workers. As long as they doff their caps to the Rees-Moggs of this world they are fine and dandy, when they start to ask why Rees-Mogg is so rich, they are treated as enemies of the state.
With respect you are turning into Corbyn - if you think paying £10 per hour to largely student and trainee workers is warranted why would any employer give them a job when they can pay a similar figure to much more mature employees
British Future has a survey showing that 86% want high-skilled immigration from the EU to stay the same or rise post Brexit (including 82% of Leave voters) but 64% of the public (including 50% of Remain voters) want low-skilled immigration from the EU to fall http://www.britishfuture.org/articles/immigration-consensus-after-brexit/
I am one of the 86% and I am one of the 64%
People who study this
I am not claiming this as an argument for more immigration, but simply to point out of it is more complex than skilled immigration good; unskilled bad. If anything, it's better to move up the value chain and buy in the unskilled labour.
I can see your argument but it is voter perception more than anything that wants to reduce unskilled immigration
Because we have (and I am very supportive of this) a generous welfare state. Unskilled Labour is larger in number and lower in contribution to the treasury than high skilled immigration. It therefore can be a net detractor, and a competitor in the race for sometimes scarce public provison.
When I vote for Brexit to stop immigrants undercutting my pay, they call me a patriot. However, when I #mcstrike for higher pay they call me a Communist...
The Tories support for the workers doesn't last very long, does it?
86% of McDonald's workforce want zero hours contracts to remain.
The Tories want their government to control wages via central control of immigration,they do not like it when the workers decide to take that power for themselves. Corbyn is ahead of the curve on the #mcstrike. McDonalds is not the worst employer in the country, but it is a classical globalized force that relies on cheap labour.
I have no problem with ZHC when they are the workers choice*, but very often they are not, and are exploitative ways of making the workers subservient to their masters whims.
* I would suggest that ZHCs should only be permitted in unionised workplaces where the shop steward authorises it following discussion with the stakeholders, and the employee in particular.
I don't see why it should be up to a Shop Steward to decide.
We haven't yet reached the point where McDonalds is an essential service. The staff should be allowed to take whatever industrial action they think fit to improve pay and conditions if they are dissatisfied.
This is the most interesting strike in years, having international aspects (today was chosen as it is Labour day in the USA, and there are strikes there, as well as a number of other countries, and all inspired by the successful NZ actions).
It also is an attempt to unionise and organise a private sector service industry that acts on a global scale to pay minimum wages, subsidised by the state, while raking off the profits for executives and shareholders, and paying very little tax. Time to organise in Starbucks, Amazon, and a few others next.
After all, what is the point of the people having sovereignty if they cannot exercise it? The threat to the people is far more from globalized capitalists than it is from the EU. As I said, Corbyn and McDonnell can surf this wave a lot further.
British Future has a survey showing that 86% want high-skilled immigration from the EU to stay the same or rise post Brexit (including 82% of Leave voters) but 64% of the public (including 50% of Remain voters) want low-skilled immigration from the EU to fall http://www.britishfuture.org/articles/immigration-consensus-after-brexit/
I am one of the 86% and I am one of the 64%
...
I am not claiming this as an argument for more immigration, but simply to point out of it is more complex than skilled immigration good; unskilled bad. If anything, it's better to move up the value chain and buy in the unskilled labour.
I can see your argument but it is voter perception more than anything that wants to reduce unskilled immigration
Because we have (and I am very supportive of this) a generous welfare state. Unskilled Labour is larger in number and lower in contribution to the treasury than high skilled immigration. It therefore can be a net detractor, and a competitor in the race for sometimes scarce public provison.
When I vote for Brexit to stop immigrants undercutting my pay, they call me a patriot. However, when I #mcstrike for higher pay they call me a Communist...
The Tories support for the workers doesn't last very long, does it?
86% of McDonald's workforce want zero hours contracts to remain.
Also all this does is increase McDonalds pace of automation
The British worker is a salt of the earth patriot, until he/she decides to take action.
We see fairly quickly how it is just lip service and crocodile tears from the Tories over the plight of low paid workers. As long as they doff their caps to the Rees-Moggs of this world they are fine and dandy, when they start to ask why Rees-Mogg is so rich, they are treated as enemies of the state.
What rot.
Tories know that strikes don't work to rebalance an economy.
If you want a scapegoat for low pay then Brown is your man. Tax credits were an attempt to appease a client vote, instead of developing a high skilled high pay economy.
With respect you are turning into Corbyn - if you think paying £10 per hour to largely student and trainee workers is warranted why would any employer give them a job when they can pay a similar figure to much more mature employees
Whilst I understand your sentiments, the only surprise is that it has taken so long. We are at full employment in many regions now. We are vowing to crack down on low-skilled immigration. The pool of mature employees to work in McDonald's simply isn't there. We will see more of this. We can't keep these employment levels with little to no wage growth. It is simple economics.
British Future has a survey showing that 86% want high-skilled immigration from the EU to stay the same or rise post Brexit (including 82% of Leave voters) but 64% of the public (including 50% of Remain voters) want low-skilled immigration from the EU to fall http://www.britishfuture.org/articles/immigration-consensus-after-brexit/
I am one of the 86% and I am one of the 64%
People who study this
I am not claiming this as an argument for more immigration, but simply to point out of it is more complex than skilled immigration good; unskilled bad. If anything, it's better to move up the value chain and buy in the unskilled labour.
I can see your argument but it is voter perception more than anything that wants to reduce unskilled immigration
Because we have (and I am very supportive of this) a generous welfare state.
When I vote for Brexit to stop immigrants undercutting my pay, they call me a patriot. However, when I #mcstrike for higher pay they call me a Communist...
The Tories support for the workers doesn't last very long, does it?
86% of McDonald's workforce want zero hours contracts to remain.
The Tories want their government to control wages via central control of immigration,they do not like it when the workers decide to take that power for themselves. Corbyn is ahead of the curve on the #mcstrike. McDonalds is not the worst employer in the country, but it is a classical globalized force that relies on cheap labour.
I have no problem with ZHC when they are the workers choice*, but very often they are not, and are exploitative ways of making the workers subservient to their masters whims.
* I would suggest that ZHCs should only be permitted in unionised workplaces where the shop steward authorises it following discussion with the stakeholders, and the employee in particular.
I don't see why it should be up to a Shop Steward to decide.
Just my suggestion, so that the employee has protection from exploitative practices.
Why should the state subsidise these companies with in work benefits, when they pay no taxes and offshore profits? If their business model only works on the basis that society picks up the costs while they pick up the profits, what has been the gain for the nation?
As the Good Book says "The worker is worthy of his hire"
We haven't yet reached the point where McDonalds is an essential service. The staff should be allowed to take whatever industrial action they think fit to improve pay and conditions if they are dissatisfied.
This is the most interesting strike in years, having international aspects (today was chosen as it is Labour day in the USA, and there are strikes there, as well as a number of other countries, and all inspired by the successful NZ actions).
It also is an attempt to unionise and organise a private sector service industry that acts on a global scale to pay minimum wages, subsidised by the state, while raking off the profits for executives and shareholders, and paying very little tax. Time to organise in Starbucks, Amazon, and a few others next.
After all, what is the point of the people having sovereignty if they cannot exercise it? The threat to the people is far more from globalized capitalists than it is from the EU. As I said, Corbyn and McDonnell can surf this wave a lot further.
McDonalds is also vulnerable to quite a bit of its clientele being sensitive to the idea that the company is run at the expense of its workers. It's not as though there was a shortage of fast food joints to choose from. The others may be no better, but the UAW did well in the car industry for a long time by picking on one company at a time.
With respect you are turning into Corbyn - if you think paying £10 per hour to largely student and trainee workers is warranted why would any employer give them a job when they can pay a similar figure to much more mature employees
Whilst I understand your sentiments, the only surprise is that it has taken so long. We are at full employment in many regions now. We are vowing to crack down on low-skilled immigration. The pool of mature employees to work in McDonald's simply isn't there. We will see more of this. We can't keep these employment levels with little to no wage growth. It is simple economics.
At £10 per hour the pool would be there. However I do agree that young workers up to 25 should have an improvement in their wage rates nearer to the Government's National Living Wage
Just a point of order on McDonald's not paying tax etc. I believe most McDonald's restaurants are franchises owned by individuals ie whatever tax efficiencies the big corporate entity has, the people owning the franchise won't be getting that advantage, and they are the ones paying the wages etc etc etc.
To buy a franchise such as McDonald's costs an absolute fortune and owners normally take out massive loans / remortgage their homes to get into the game.
Comments
Tory whips using up their reserves of emergency logic to get the brexit legislation through;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-41146196/soubry-bullish-macho-government-must-stop
This is how to win a battle but lose the war. Remember this?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-just-branded-a-lot-of-people-terrorist-sympathisers-and-people-arent-happy-a6756776.html
It was a small but important moment in galvanising the opposition to dave within the tory party.
TMWNBPMin2022
Ukranian nuclear scientists have also been mentioned.
There is a risk the 27 may turn down the approach but business and the voters throughout the EU will be drawn into the debate and it would receive Europe and World wide media cover
The speed has not been extraordinary. Their first nuclear test (which ISTR was a fizzle) was eleven years ago. They haven't progressed that quickly since then, at least on the nuclear side.
Remember the US developed both uranium and plutonium bombs in under four years (after a couple of years of very low-funded research). Russia got theirs in roughly the same time, although with the help of some espionage and the knowledge such weapons could work.
Rocketry might be a different matter, but again they've been working on that for yonks. Although one of the things that really matters on rocketry - the targeting systems - will not be easily visible from their tests.
http://www.newsweek.com/did-ukraine-provide-rocket-engines-north-korea-its-nuclear-missile-program-658147
You might also like to read that article, and realise it's about rockets, not nukes.
It's also rather vague, and assumes the NK scientists are stupid. If SpaceX can design and manufacture a reliable rocket motor cheaply, so can any state nowadays.
It was a very damaging remark for 'Barnier' to make and will have done the EU negotiators no good at all
https://twitter.com/activatebritain/status/904752710599266304
We're also realising that primitive life might exist outside the Goldlicks zone. I mean, they've discovered that Pluto might have fricking geysers. How the heck can cold Pluto be active ... ?
Why can't we bring Aung Sung Suu Kyi to the Hague for war crimes ?
The arrogance of Barnier's statement that the UK needs educating and Andrew Marr's obvious annoyance that Barnier refused to be interviewed demonstrates how out of touch he is and how he does not want to be cross examined by the media
The Nobel Prize needs taking off her
If the competitiveness of British sites is threatened, there is likely to be a long-term detrimental effect on Airbus’s future in the UK. “A rejection of the EU by the UK is perceived by many people in Airbus as a rejection of the values that underpin Airbus,” said the source.
“It would be foolish for Airbus to take work out and shut Broughton. But it doesn’t want to give the Europeans an excuse to marginalise the UK, and Brexit gives them an excuse.”
The EU27 have picked their team, defined their initial positions and demonstrated solidarity. It is not their fault that they are well organised and briefed, while we deploy Blackadders less competent cousin.
TSE said
'On topic, Votes of No Confidence are very rare.
I think we've had two in thirty-eight years, the last being in 1990.'
In the past I believe they were much more common. I seem to recall Thatcher tabling such votes on a pretty regular basis against the Callaghan Government. From memory, there was also such a Vote under the Major Government circa 1993 when one of the Maastricht rebels - Rupert Allason - abstained and had the Tory whip withdrawn. In practice, there is very little chance of such a vote succeeding , and I am sure that Oppositions have tabled them simply as a means of gaining headlines. I was surprised Miliband failed to do this during the Coalition years.
Burma sees what Islamic fundamentalism has done elsewhere, including in the region, and responds in a characteristically heavy handed way. The Chinese influence is sympathetic, as the Chinese like both Burmese resources and also the access to the Indian Ocean.
The Burmese Generals are both brutal and cackhanded so may well turn the Rohingya into just the sort of Islamist force that it is not yet.
It is a part of the world where open criticism is seen as very rude and insulting, a place where speaking softly is much better received.
There was a good piece in the Times of India last week on the issues:
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/904330378692964352
"We have been, we are and I trust we always will be, detested by the French.”
And from Mark Twain:
"France has neither winter nor summer nor morals—apart from these drawbacks it is a fine country"
And perhaps a quote from Hemingway that should be shown to our Brexit negotiators:
"Everything is on such a clear financial basis in France. It is the simplest country to live in. No one makes things complicated by becoming your friend for any obscure reason. If you want people to like you, you have only to spend a little money."
At least Scotland's winning again
http://www.britishfuture.org/articles/immigration-consensus-after-brexit/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41151361
I am not claiming this as an argument for more immigration, but simply to point out of it is more complex than skilled immigration good; unskilled bad. If anything, it's better to move up the value chain and buy in the unskilled labour.
He skipped the 2015 BBC debate - but crucially he also ensured Clegg missed it as well - and that neither Con or LD had any representative - so it was called an Opposition Leaders debate and Cameron's absence didn't become any big deal.
So very, very different to May not doing either leaders debate in 2017.
Cameron managed the situation perfectly and got away with it 100% - in complete contrast to May in 2017.
https://twitter.com/roughguides/status/434303684835827712
I have never seen rice paddies in Scotland but obviously there's more to explore. Time to promote one of my favourite Twitter sites. A new corner of Scotland every day.
https://twitter.com/UndisScot/status/904751317658296321
The landlord at my (new) local said to me "You need to move on and get over it. You are the worst Remoaner I have encountered."
I took that as a compliment of sorts. Brexit has already fucked over my life and it hasn't even happened as you said.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4850082/McDonald-s-staff-stage-strike-pay.html?ITO=1490
The Tories support for the workers doesn't last very long, does it?
Incidentally, if Mad Kim did lob a nuke your way, then that documentary 'Godzilla' showed the result: mutant radioactive midges who will become your overlords ...
By contrast the Germans by 49% to 25%, the Finns by 51% to 22%, the Swedes by 56% to 20% and the Danes by a massive 62% to 18% all still hope the UK changes its mind on Brexit
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/09/04/french-public-are-more-likely-want-uk-leave-stay-e/
As an utterly irrelevant anecdote, the speed with which the McDonalds went up was amazing. The pub was demolished just before I went away on a short walking holiday. I came back a couple of weeks later and the prefabricated building was up and almost open.
Edit:
Perhaps one of the few occasions that a McDonalds has improved the look of an area:
http://www.closedpubs.co.uk/cambridgeshire/cambridge_racehorse.html
I have no problem with ZHC when they are the workers choice*, but very often they are not, and are exploitative ways of making the workers subservient to their masters whims.
* I would suggest that ZHCs should only be permitted in unionised workplaces where the shop steward authorises it following discussion with the stakeholders, and the employee in particular.
Though I do long for the days when we had a grown up opposition that didn't jump on every strike bandwagon going...
Although the one effect of this strike on me is that I really want a McD's burger - I haven't had one for two years ...
Agreed. Although I do wonder how much of this is rabble rousing by the Opposition.
We see fairly quickly how it is just lip service and crocodile tears from the Tories over the plight of low paid workers. As long as they doff their caps to the Rees-Moggs of this world they are fine and dandy, when they start to ask why Rees-Mogg is so rich, they are treated as enemies of the state.
I am one of the 86% and I am one of the 64%
People who study this claim each immigrant creates very nearly one new job through trade and taxes. In other words immigration is nearly neutral on indigenous employment. However ... immigrants are overqualified for the jobs they do, or to put it another way they earn less. This means the indigenous population have jobs that pay higher than they would otherwise do. There are more managerial jobs, a higher proportion of permanent rather than temporary or part time jobs, thanks to relatively low paid immigrants.
I am not claiming this as an argument for more immigration, but simply to point out of it is more complex than skilled immigration good; unskilled bad. If anything, it's better to move up the value chain and buy in the unskilled labour.
I can see your argument but it is voter perception more than anything that wants to reduce unskilled immigration
Because we have (and I am very supportive of this) a generous welfare state. Unskilled Labour is larger in number and lower in contribution to the treasury than high skilled immigration. It therefore can be a net detractor, and a competitor in the race for sometimes scarce public provison.
When I vote for Brexit to stop immigrants undercutting my pay, they call me a patriot. However, when I #mcstrike for higher pay they call me a Communist...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4850082/McDonald-s-staff-stage-strike-pay.html?ITO=1490
The Tories support for the workers doesn't last very long, does it?
86% of McDonald's workforce want zero hours contracts to remain.
Also all this does is increase McDonalds pace of automation
The British worker is a salt of the earth patriot, until he/she decides to take action.
We see fairly quickly how it is just lip service and crocodile tears from the Tories over the plight of low paid workers. As long as they doff their caps to the Rees-Moggs of this world they are fine and dandy, when they start to ask why Rees-Mogg is so rich, they are treated as enemies of the state.
With respect you are turning into Corbyn - if you think paying £10 per hour to largely student and trainee workers is warranted why would any employer give them a job when they can pay a similar figure to much more mature employees
It also is an attempt to unionise and organise a private sector service industry that acts on a global scale to pay minimum wages, subsidised by the state, while raking off the profits for executives and shareholders, and paying very little tax. Time to organise in Starbucks, Amazon, and a few others next.
After all, what is the point of the people having sovereignty if they cannot exercise it? The threat to the people is far more from globalized capitalists than it is from the EU. As I said, Corbyn and McDonnell can surf this wave a lot further.
Tories know that strikes don't work to rebalance an economy.
If you want a scapegoat for low pay then Brown is your man. Tax credits were an attempt to appease a client vote, instead of developing a high skilled high pay economy.
With respect you are turning into Corbyn - if you think paying £10 per hour to largely student and trainee workers is warranted why would any employer give them a job when they can pay a similar figure to much more mature employees
Whilst I understand your sentiments, the only surprise is that it has taken so long. We are at full employment in many regions now. We are vowing to crack down on low-skilled immigration. The pool of mature employees to work in McDonald's simply isn't there. We will see more of this. We can't keep these employment levels with little to no wage growth. It is simple economics.
Why should the state subsidise these companies with in work benefits, when they pay no taxes and offshore profits? If their business model only works on the basis that society picks up the costs while they pick up the profits, what has been the gain for the nation?
As the Good Book says "The worker is worthy of his hire"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/04/ted-heath-accusers-line-compensation-police-appeal-victims/
At £10 per hour the pool would be there. However I do agree that young workers up to 25 should have an improvement in their wage rates nearer to the Government's National Living Wage
To buy a franchise such as McDonald's costs an absolute fortune and owners normally take out massive loans / remortgage their homes to get into the game.