Makes no sense, given that UKIP will be contributing around 120 seats to the pool. It doesn't inspire confidence.
Note the table at the end of the article, showing the outcome vs forecasts in 2017. Rallings & Thrasher were miles out then.
Executive summary: no-one has a clue!
Edit: Ah yes, looks like a typo. That makes much more sense.
Are there fewer seats in total this time? I think Birmingham has had its number of councillors cut - have other councils fared similarly / been merged / abolished?
I don't think that the boundary changes in Leeds have resulted in a reduction in seats.
No, Leeds hasn't (declaration of interest - I'm a candidate there this year).
May I ask which ward?
Middleton Park. I hope I'm not breaking any confidences when I say that I don't expect to be elected.
Thanks. We can both be gallant losers then.
I am hoping to beat the SDP candidate (isn't it amazing how some parties refuse to die). Where are you standing?
Anyone remember the Smooth Speaker's Guide to Being a Sleazebag?
..when the Speaker was a Lambeth councilor, a year after graduation from Essex University, in 1986, a story appeared in student Conservative magazine Armageddon entitled: ‘The John Bercow guide to understanding women’. The story is divided into five categories: ‘How to pick up drunk girls’, ‘How to pick up virgins’, ‘How to pick up refined girls’, ‘How to get rid of a girl during sex’ and ‘How to get rid of a girl after sex’. Readers were informed: ‘Women will settle for anything that breathes and has a credit card.’ Advice on what to say to drunk girls includes: ‘If you’re free later maybe we could go back to your place and name your breasts.’ On virgins it says: ‘Lying is good: the truth is bad. There’s nothing more dangerous than an armed hysterical virgin.’ There is many a need for getting rid of a women in bed readers are told an example of which is: ‘She won’t make sounds like a squirrel even though you are offering her money.’ To get a woman out of bed after sex readers are advised: ‘Warning: Don’t move, I have just broken a test tube filled with the AIDS virus or I hate your tits.’
It is amazing the consistency of views one hears from inside the echo chamber Carlotta!
PMQs - Snap verdict: That wasn’t really a PMQs at all; we just had two PPBs (party political broadcasts) blaring away in tandem, doing little to enlighten anyone. Corbyn’s PPB was better on passion, and it covered wider ground - in fact, there was little area of public policy where he failed to castigate the government - but May probably did better on specific, memorable detail (her Hazelbourne Road anecdote).
There are some terrific long-odds lays in the Next PM market if you've got a big enough bankroll: Ruth Davidson 38, David Miliband 95, Sadiq Kahn 200, Nigel Farage 400..
I see little value there. ... .
My point was that the value was in laying them, not backing them!
Ah - that makes a little more sense. Still, potentially tying up a lot of money for small returns?
It is amazing the consistency of views one hears from inside the echo chamber Carlotta!
PMQs - Snap verdict: That wasn’t really a PMQs at all; we just had two PPBs (party political broadcasts) blaring away in tandem, doing little to enlighten anyone. Corbyn’s PPB was better on passion, and it covered wider ground - in fact, there was little area of public policy where he failed to castigate the government - but May probably did better on specific, memorable detail (her Hazelbourne Road anecdote).
Council tax in Tory Craven is HIGHER than in Labour Leeds.
Who'd have thunk it!
Feels like whenever that game is played it is just nonsense posturing - is the suggestion if party x were to take control of a council currently run by party y the council tax bands would rapidly reduce? I find it unlikely. But perhaps I am cynical and that does happen occasionally.
I agree with much of this. But it brings us back to how do we do all of that if we are still in the Single Market for instance? I feel sure a large majority would love to have an income threshold that let in (say) Indian surgeons but kept out (say) Romanian Big Issue sellers, but the EU won't allow such a notion.
Nobody dreams of growing up to sell the Big Issue so the best approach is to ensure people have better options and also clamp down on any exploitation. Trying to control numbers or set thresholds is treating the symptom, not the cause.
Bollocks. There's no magic bullet, sure, you need to take a variety of measured actions, but just saying "yeah we can do all that, but closing the door partly is not part of it, not at all no way, it's untouchable" (ie the EU approach), is horseshit.
Totally generic and pointless question, I expect there are some very hard working Somali immigrants and even a few lazy Australians who contribute little, it depends on the individual applicant not the country of origin
Agreed, but our immigration system treats people very differently depending on their nationality.
Mainly it is preferential to EU/EEA migrants which will end once free movement ends to create a more level playing field
Nonsense - do you really think the immigration systems treats applicants from Somalia and the USA equally?
Furthermore people from the EU/EEA are not currently in the immigration system. Does anyone believe the Home Office is competent to double the scope of its work?
It is amazing the consistency of views one hears from inside the echo chamber Carlotta!
PMQs - Snap verdict: That wasn’t really a PMQs at all; we just had two PPBs (party political broadcasts) blaring away in tandem, doing little to enlighten anyone. Corbyn’s PPB was better on passion, and it covered wider ground - in fact, there was little area of public policy where he failed to castigate the government - but May probably did better on specific, memorable detail (her Hazelbourne Road anecdote).
It is amazing the consistency of views one hears from inside the echo chamber Carlotta!
PMQs - Snap verdict: That wasn’t really a PMQs at all; we just had two PPBs (party political broadcasts) blaring away in tandem, doing little to enlighten anyone. Corbyn’s PPB was better on passion, and it covered wider ground - in fact, there was little area of public policy where he failed to castigate the government - but May probably did better on specific, memorable detail (her Hazelbourne Road anecdote).
There are some terrific long-odds lays in the Next PM market if you've got a big enough bankroll: Ruth Davidson 38, David Miliband 95, Sadiq Kahn 200, Nigel Farage 400..
I see little value there. ... .
My point was that the value was in laying them, not backing them!
Ah - that makes a little more sense. Still, potentially tying up a lot of money for small returns?
Richard means if your book is green, so you are not tying up any additional cash
There are some terrific long-odds lays in the Next PM market if you've got a big enough bankroll: Ruth Davidson 38, David Miliband 95, Sadiq Kahn 200, Nigel Farage 400..
I see little value there. ... .
My point was that the value was in laying them, not backing them!
Ah - that makes a little more sense. Still, potentially tying up a lot of money for small returns?
Works well if you've laid Mogg. Each additional lay REDUCES your liability...
My extended family is still based in Boston and as I've said before, the Poles aren't personally disliked by the Leavers who include virtually all of the adults in my family. (The odd younger member is excused their Remainer instincts as they'll probably grow out of it soon enough).
They drink hard and the drink-drive convictions have shot up, but no one denies they do work hard too
The problem is more the seeming lack of control over the numbers. There's been a massive increase in the population without a corresponding increase in the local facilities like schools and healthcare. The RC church now has four Sunday masses instead of the previous one.
I asked my young nephew (a Remainer in the referendum) who was unemployed for a while after graduating, why he didn't go on the land for a bit. "I can't speak Polish or Lithuanian" was his reply.
They feel the over-crowding and they don't trust any UK government to give a shit. Instead there's a feeling that it will fall over itself to suck up to the EU and be a perfect member. I can understand that feeling.
Mr Meeks knows it's racism pure and simple as he is much wiser (being a Londoner) and thus knows better than these rural thickos about what's happening on the fens.
Estimated population density in the borough of Boston in 2016 was 185 per km2. This is in the bottom third of English authorities. I realise that fenland folk are unsociable but since I live in a borough that is 84 times more densely populated, I'm not going to take any nonsense about overcrowding.
As @not_on_fire comments, the problem is not one of overcrowding but inadequate infrastructure.
It is amazing the consistency of views one hears from inside the echo chamber Carlotta!
PMQs - Snap verdict: That wasn’t really a PMQs at all; we just had two PPBs (party political broadcasts) blaring away in tandem, doing little to enlighten anyone. Corbyn’s PPB was better on passion, and it covered wider ground - in fact, there was little area of public policy where he failed to castigate the government - but May probably did better on specific, memorable detail (her Hazelbourne Road anecdote).
I agree with much of this. But it brings us back to how do we do all of that if we are still in the Single Market for instance? I feel sure a large majority would love to have an income threshold that let in (say) Indian surgeons but kept out (say) Romanian Big Issue sellers, but the EU won't allow such a notion.
Nobody dreams of growing up to sell the Big Issue so the best approach is to ensure people have better options and also clamp down on any exploitation. Trying to control numbers or set thresholds is treating the symptom, not the cause.
Bollocks. There's no magic bullet, sure, you need to take a variety of measured actions, but just saying "yeah we can do all that, but closing the door partly is not part of it, not at all no way, it's untouchable" (ie the EU approach), is horseshit.
You have to consider the practicalities. To prevent people from Romania selling the Big Issue in this country you would need to stop them entering in the first place. That would mean a tourist visa regime for the whole EU. It's nuts and there are other things that would have a much greater impact. If you really want to create a 'hostile environment' why not take the Sarkozy approach?
My extended family is still based in Boston and as I've said before, the Poles aren't personally disliked by the Leavers who include virtually all of the adults in my family. (The odd younger member is excused their Remainer instincts as they'll probably grow out of it soon enough).
They drink hard and the drink-drive convictions have shot up, but no one denies they do work hard too
The problem is more the seeming lack of control over the numbers. There's been a massive increase in the population without a corresponding increase in the local facilities like schools and healthcare. The RC church now has four Sunday masses instead of the previous one.
I asked my young nephew (a Remainer in the referendum) who was unemployed for a while after graduating, why he didn't go on the land for a bit. "I can't speak Polish or Lithuanian" was his reply.
They feel the over-crowding and they don't trust any UK government to give a shit. Instead there's a feeling that it will fall over itself to suck up to the EU and be a perfect member. I can understand that feeling.
Mr Meeks knows it's racism pure and simple as he is much wiser (being a Londoner) and thus knows better than these rural thickos about what's happening on the fens.
Estimated population density in the borough of Boston in 2016 was 185 per km2. This is in the bottom third of English authorities. I realise that fenland folk are unsociable but since I live in a borough that is 84 times more densely populated, I'm not going to take any nonsense about overcrowding.
As @not_on_fire comments, the problem is not one of overcrowding but inadequate infrastructure.
One more point on this market, which has been touched on a couple of times by other posters: this is not a market at present (in my view) to be all green on. The odds on Jacob Rees-Mogg are so skewed (in my opinion) that if it's a market you're interested in, it's practically mandatory to be red on him.
You might lose, but being green on him at present odds to my mind would be very timid.
It is amazing the consistency of views one hears from inside the echo chamber Carlotta!
PMQs - Snap verdict: That wasn’t really a PMQs at all; we just had two PPBs (party political broadcasts) blaring away in tandem, doing little to enlighten anyone. Corbyn’s PPB was better on passion, and it covered wider ground - in fact, there was little area of public policy where he failed to castigate the government - but May probably did better on specific, memorable detail (her Hazelbourne Road anecdote).
Isn't that due to Westminster raking it in from car parking charges? .
Nah - Labour councils are run for the employees not the residents.
I had a Labour leaflet through the door boasting they had "given all council employees a minimum wage of £10/hr - vote for us"
Mindboggling how crass it came across.
Yes paying people a very modest living wage is crass.
Only on PB.
But think how it reads to someone in the private sector, who is struggling having not had a raise in years, at being told that their council tax went up so others could get a raise.
My extended family is still based in Boston and as I've said before, the Poles aren't personally disliked by the Leavers who include virtually all of the adults in my family. (The odd younger member is excused their Remainer instincts as they'll probably grow out of it soon enough).
They drink hard and the drink-drive convictions have shot up, but no one denies they do work hard too
The problem is more the seeming lack of control over the numbers. There's been a massive increase in the population without a corresponding increase in the local facilities like schools and healthcare. The RC church now has four Sunday masses instead of the previous one.
I asked my young nephew (a Remainer in the referendum) who was unemployed for a while after graduating, why he didn't go on the land for a bit. "I can't speak Polish or Lithuanian" was his reply.
They feel the over-crowding and they don't trust any UK government to give a shit. Instead there's a feeling that it will fall over itself to suck up to the EU and be a perfect member. I can understand that feeling.
Mr Meeks knows it's racism pure and simple as he is much wiser (being a Londoner) and thus knows better than these rural thickos about what's happening on the fens.
Estimated population density in the borough of Boston in 2016 was 185 per km2. This is in the bottom third of English authorities. I realise that fenland folk are unsociable but since I live in a borough that is 84 times more densely populated, I'm not going to take any nonsense about overcrowding.
As @not_on_fire comments, the problem is not one of overcrowding but inadequate infrastructure.
so where's the infrastructure ?
A much better question. All that focus on austerity had its consequences and one was that it led to the yokels revolting for exactly this reason.
My extended family is still based in Boston and as I've said before, the Poles aren't personally disliked by the Leavers who include virtually all of the adults in my family. (The odd younger member is excused their Remainer instincts as they'll probably grow out of it soon enough).
They drink hard and the drink-drive convictions have shot up, but no one denies they do work hard too
The problem is more the seeming lack of control over the numbers. There's been a massive increase in the population without a corresponding increase in the local facilities like schools and healthcare. The RC church now has four Sunday masses instead of the previous one.
I asked my young nephew (a Remainer in the referendum) who was unemployed for a while after graduating, why he didn't go on the land for a bit. "I can't speak Polish or Lithuanian" was his reply.
They feel the over-crowding and they don't trust any UK government to give a shit. Instead there's a feeling that it will fall over itself to suck up to the EU and be a perfect member. I can understand that feeling.
Mr Meeks knows it's racism pure and simple as he is much wiser (being a Londoner) and thus knows better than these rural thickos about what's happening on the fens.
Estimated population density in the borough of Boston in 2016 was 185 per km2. This is in the bottom third of English authorities. I realise that fenland folk are unsociable but since I live in a borough that is 84 times more densely populated, I'm not going to take any nonsense about overcrowding.
As @not_on_fire comments, the problem is not one of overcrowding but inadequate infrastructure.
so where's the infrastructure ?
A much better question. All that focus on austerity had its consequences and one was that it led to the yokels revolting for exactly this reason.
So why is that wrong ? As the people who receive few benefits from mass immigration they are well within their rights to make their point and have it listened to. It was the demonisation of the issue which made the reaction more acute.
My extended family is still based in Boston and as I've said before, the Poles aren't personally disliked by the Leavers who include virtually all of the adults in my family. (The odd younger member is excused their Remainer instincts as they'll probably grow out of it soon enough).
They drink hard and the drink-drive convictions have shot up, but no one denies they do work hard too
The problem is more the seeming lack of control over the numbers. There's been a massive increase in the population without a corresponding increase in the local facilities like schools and healthcare. The RC church now has four Sunday masses instead of the previous one.
I asked my young nephew (a Remainer in the referendum) who was unemployed for a while after graduating, why he didn't go on the land for a bit. "I can't speak Polish or Lithuanian" was his reply.
They feel the over-crowding and they don't trust any UK government to give a shit. Instead there's a feeling that it will fall over itself to suck up to the EU and be a perfect member. I can understand that feeling.
Mr Meeks knows it's racism pure and simple as he is much wiser (being a Londoner) and thus knows better than these rural thickos about what's happening on the fens.
Estimated population density in the borough of Boston in 2016 was 185 per km2. This is in the bottom third of English authorities. I realise that fenland folk are unsociable but since I live in a borough that is 84 times more densely populated, I'm not going to take any nonsense about overcrowding.
As @not_on_fire comments, the problem is not one of overcrowding but inadequate infrastructure.
so where's the infrastructure ?
A much better question. All that focus on austerity had its consequences and one was that it led to the yokels revolting for exactly this reason.
"As @not_on_fire comments, the problem is not one of overcrowding but inadequate infrastructure."
Overcrowding depends on what you're used to. You Londoners are used to living cheek by jowl.
On a serious point, I don't disagree with you. Some of the immigrants can be a little antisocial and a few of the locals will be a little racist, you'll find that everywhere. But Poles and Lithuanians are white, Christian and culturally similar. The complaints would be the same if a shedload of cockneys turned up without sufficient provision made for them.
When it comes to the EU immigration, it seems the government attitude has been "suck it up."
I myself would try to maintain immigration at sub-150k, by aggressive use of the income threshold. I would exclude students from the target. I would set up an independent body to monitor and set various thresholds. I would exclude migrants from benefits for five years. I would privilege, in order, fellow crown realms, the EU, the USA and India, and former Commonwealth countries. I would set up a migration infrastructure fund that is directly correlated to migration
Income based assessment is the best way and we should apply it globally and apply a cultural test for everyone who meets the requirements. That would keep net migration down to about the level you mention and we would only import wealth creating immigration. It's essentially what Switzerland does. Immigration needs to add economic value or it shouldn't happen.
Income is only one value of many. You also need to look at skills and what immigrants actually have to offer to the wider economy.
I would suggest that rigorously applying an income based requirement would simply lead to lots of immigration from people who work in financial services and other London based sectors, thus exacerbating the infrastructure and housing problems that already exist in the capital. Their value to the economy is based on consumption and the tax that they would pay (that is assuming that they are employed and actually paying tax here)
Whilst this benefits the economy in a lot of ways, there are lots of other ways in which immigrants can contribute to society. Not least because they add enormous value to sectors like the healthcare, the arts, culture and higher education. If you rigorously apply an income based requirement, then you are discriminating against those sectors.
More generally, I would suggest that we are far too dependent already on financial services, we need to urgently diversify our economy. We also need to ditch the thoroughly distasteful idea that people on high incomes are worth more to our society than others, which is what an income based immigration policy ultimately symbolises.
My extended family is still based in Boston and as I've said before, the Poles aren't personally disliked by the Leavers who include virtually all of the adults in my family. (The odd younger member is excused their Remainer instincts as they'll probably grow out of it soon enough).
They drink hard and the drink-drive convictions have shot up, but no one denies they do work hard too
The problem is more the seeming lack of control over the numbers. There's been a massive increase in the population without a corresponding increase in the local facilities like schools and healthcare. The RC church now has four Sunday masses instead of the previous one.
I asked my young nephew (a Remainer in the referendum) who was unemployed for a while after graduating, why he didn't go on the land for a bit. "I can't speak Polish or Lithuanian" was his reply.
They feel the over-crowding and they don't trust any UK government to give a shit. Instead there's a feeling that it will fall over itself to suck up to the EU and be a perfect member. I can understand that feeling.
Mr Meeks knows it's racism pure and simple as he is much wiser (being a Londoner) and thus knows better than these rural thickos about what's happening on the fens.
Estimated population density in the borough of Boston in 2016 was 185 per km2. This is in the bottom third of English authorities. I realise that fenland folk are unsociable but since I live in a borough that is 84 times more densely populated, I'm not going to take any nonsense about overcrowding.
As @not_on_fire comments, the problem is not one of overcrowding but inadequate infrastructure.
so where's the infrastructure ?
A much better question. All that focus on austerity had its consequences and one was that it led to the yokels revolting for exactly this reason.
Yokels? Really?
You're such a ridiculously pompous snob.
OK, since you insist: "persons of straw mastication".
It is amazing the consistency of views one hears from inside the echo chamber Carlotta!
PMQs - Snap verdict: That wasn’t really a PMQs at all; we just had two PPBs (party political broadcasts) blaring away in tandem, doing little to enlighten anyone. Corbyn’s PPB was better on passion, and it covered wider ground - in fact, there was little area of public policy where he failed to castigate the government - but May probably did better on specific, memorable detail (her Hazelbourne Road anecdote).
Isn't that due to Westminster raking it in from car parking charges? .
Nah - Labour councils are run for the employees not the residents.
I had a Labour leaflet through the door boasting they had "given all council employees a minimum wage of £10/hr - vote for us"
Mindboggling how crass it came across.
Yes paying people a very modest living wage is crass.
Only on PB.
I don't think it is crass, but as someone working in local government (not today though, I hasten to add), there is certainly a market which sees any spending on employees, however reasonable, as outrageous. And it isn't merely a Tory vote, since I'm in a Tory area, and the people complaining about such things are against the council.
I just don't think that many people will be outraged at such a policy - yes they might be mad at waste, or the overall wage bill, but put the minimum wage figure to people and I doubt sufficient numbers think it is a counter productive point to make.
Makes no sense, given that UKIP will be contributing around 120 seats to the pool. It doesn't inspire confidence.
Note the table at the end of the article, showing the outcome vs forecasts in 2017. Rallings & Thrasher were miles out then.
Executive summary: no-one has a clue!
Edit: Ah yes, looks like a typo. That makes much more sense.
Are there fewer seats in total this time? I think Birmingham has had its number of councillors cut - have other councils fared similarly / been merged / abolished?
I don't think that the boundary changes in Leeds have resulted in a reduction in seats.
No, Leeds hasn't (declaration of interest - I'm a candidate there this year).
May I ask which ward?
Middleton Park. I hope I'm not breaking any confidences when I say that I don't expect to be elected.
Thanks. We can both be gallant losers then.
I am hoping to beat the SDP candidate (isn't it amazing how some parties refuse to die). Where are you standing?
I'm making up the numbers in one of the Craven wards.
It is amazing the consistency of views one hears from inside the echo chamber Carlotta!
PMQs - Snap verdict: That wasn’t really a PMQs at all; we just had two PPBs (party political broadcasts) blaring away in tandem, doing little to enlighten anyone. Corbyn’s PPB was better on passion, and it covered wider ground - in fact, there was little area of public policy where he failed to castigate the government - but May probably did better on specific, memorable detail (her Hazelbourne Road anecdote).
Isn't that due to Westminster raking it in from car parking charges? .
Nah - Labour councils are run for the employees not the residents.
I had a Labour leaflet through the door boasting they had "given all council employees a minimum wage of £10/hr - vote for us"
Mindboggling how crass it came across.
Yes paying people a very modest living wage is crass.
Only on PB.
I don't think it is crass, but as someone working in local government (not today though, I hasten to add), there is certainly a market which sees any spending on employees, however reasonable, as outrageous. And it isn't merely a Tory vote, since I'm in a Tory area, and the people complaining about such things are against the council.
I just don't think that many people will be outraged at such a policy - yes they might be mad at waste, or the overall wage bill, but put the minimum wage figure to people and I doubt sufficient numbers think it is a counter productive point to make.
Yes, those that rail against paying employees £10 an hour – which is peanuts in any case – are the crass ones. I am relieved that council pays at least that, why shouldn't they mention it?
I agree with much of this. But it brings us back to how do we do all of that if we are still in the Single Market for instance? I feel sure a large majority would love to have an income threshold that let in (say) Indian surgeons but kept out (say) Romanian Big Issue sellers, but the EU won't allow such a notion.
Nobody dreams of growing up to sell the Big Issue so the best approach is to ensure people have better options and also clamp down on any exploitation. Trying to control numbers or set thresholds is treating the symptom, not the cause.
Bollocks. There's no magic bullet, sure, you need to take a variety of measured actions, but just saying "yeah we can do all that, but closing the door partly is not part of it, not at all no way, it's untouchable" (ie the EU approach), is horseshit.
You have to consider the practicalities. To prevent people from Romania selling the Big Issue in this country you would need to stop them entering in the first place. That would mean a tourist visa regime for the whole EU. It's nuts and there are other things that would have a much greater impact. If you really want to create a 'hostile environment' why not take the Sarkozy approach?
What's the Sarkozy approach? (genuine question).
You can stop the Big Issue sellers if we have a proper ID regime (hence my grudging acceptance of this), and yes that means strictly deporting those in the future who do not comply. I take you point about current Home Office fitness but anything is possible if the will is there to do it and the resources given.
I have learnt from here about the Swiss approach which effectively sub contracts second line immigration control to employers on pain of stiff penalty. Seems perfectly good. It helps too that their "NHS" is set up differently to ours and is I believe insurance based ( I cant see that happening here if I am honest). What I will not accept is a notion "it's too hard" because the EU says it is, so we've just got to put up with mass unskilled European migration forever, uncontrolled, and hang the consequences for people who object, and even to discriminate in favour of them, whilst leaving the Indian cancer specialists at the gates.
It's not often that I agree with Jacob Rees-Mogg on Brexit matters, but I do think he and his fellow true-believers are right that the mooted 'Customs Partnership' idea is bonkers. It would involve charging EU external tariffs at our borders for imports from outside the EU, and then refunding them in part or entirely if we wanted to charge lower tariffs for goods used in the UK. It would also mean following EU regulations for imports, unless there was some complex scheme for tracking where things went.
It seems to be a scheme which has virtually all of the disadvantages of a full customs union, but with an extra layer of massive administrative complication.
Anyone remember the Smooth Speaker's Guide to Being a Sleazebag?
..when the Speaker was a Lambeth councilor, a year after graduation from Essex University, in 1986, a story appeared in student Conservative magazine Armageddon entitled: ‘The John Bercow guide to understanding women’. The story is divided into five categories: ‘How to pick up drunk girls’, ‘How to pick up virgins’, ‘How to pick up refined girls’, ‘How to get rid of a girl during sex’ and ‘How to get rid of a girl after sex’. Readers were informed: ‘Women will settle for anything that breathes and has a credit card.’ Advice on what to say to drunk girls includes: ‘If you’re free later maybe we could go back to your place and name your breasts.’ On virgins it says: ‘Lying is good: the truth is bad. There’s nothing more dangerous than an armed hysterical virgin.’ There is many a need for getting rid of a women in bed readers are told an example of which is: ‘She won’t make sounds like a squirrel even though you are offering her money.’ To get a woman out of bed after sex readers are advised: ‘Warning: Don’t move, I have just broken a test tube filled with the AIDS virus or I hate your tits.’
My extended family is still based in Boston and as I've said before, the Poles aren't personally disliked by the Leavers who include virtually all of the adults in my family. (The odd younger member is excused their Remainer instincts as they'll probably grow out of it soon enough).
They drink hard and the drink-drive convictions have shot up, but no one denies they do work hard too
The problem is more the seeming lack of control over the numbers. There's been a massive increase in the population without a corresponding increase in the local facilities like schools and healthcare. The RC church now has four Sunday masses instead of the previous one.
I asked my young nephew (a Remainer in the referendum) who was unemployed for a while after graduating, why he didn't go on the land for a bit. "I can't speak Polish or Lithuanian" was his reply.
They feel the over-crowding and they don't trust any UK government to give a shit. Instead there's a feeling that it will fall over itself to suck up to the EU and be a perfect member. I can understand that feeling.
Mr Meeks knows it's racism pure and simple as he is much wiser (being a Londoner) and thus knows better than these rural thickos about what's happening on the fens.
Estimated population density in the borough of Boston in 2016 was 185 per km2. This is in the bottom third of English authorities. I realise that fenland folk are unsociable but since I live in a borough that is 84 times more densely populated, I'm not going to take any nonsense about overcrowding.
As @not_on_fire comments, the problem is not one of overcrowding but inadequate infrastructure.
so where's the infrastructure ?
A much better question. All that focus on austerity had its consequences and one was that it led to the yokels revolting for exactly this reason.
Yokels? Really?
You're such a ridiculously pompous snob.
OK, since you insist: "persons of straw mastication".
Makes no sense, given that UKIP will be contributing around 120 seats to the pool. It doesn't inspire confidence.
Note the table at the end of the article, showing the outcome vs forecasts in 2017. Rallings & Thrasher were miles out then.
Executive summary: no-one has a clue!
Edit: Ah yes, looks like a typo. That makes much more sense.
Are there fewer seats in total this time? I think Birmingham has had its number of councillors cut - have other councils fared similarly / been merged / abolished?
I don't think that the boundary changes in Leeds have resulted in a reduction in seats.
No, Leeds hasn't (declaration of interest - I'm a candidate there this year).
May I ask which ward?
Middleton Park. I hope I'm not breaking any confidences when I say that I don't expect to be elected.
Thanks. We can both be gallant losers then.
I am hoping to beat the SDP candidate (isn't it amazing how some parties refuse to die). Where are you standing?
I'm making up the numbers in one of the Craven wards.
My extended family is still based in Boston and as I've said before, the Poles aren't personally disliked by the Leavers who include virtually all of the adults in my family. (The odd younger member is excused their Remainer instincts as they'll probably grow out of it soon enough).
They drink hard and the drink-drive convictions have shot up, but no one denies they do work hard too
The problem is more the seeming lack of control over the numbers. There's been a massive increase in the population without a corresponding increase in the local facilities like schools and healthcare. The RC church now has four Sunday masses instead of the previous one.
I asked my young nephew (a Remainer in the referendum) who was unemployed for a while after graduating, why he didn't go on the land for a bit. "I can't speak Polish or Lithuanian" was his reply.
They feel the over-crowding and they don't trust any UK government to give a shit. Instead there's a feeling that it will fall over itself to suck up to the EU and be a perfect member. I can understand that feeling.
Mr Meeks knows it's racism pure and simple as he is much wiser (being a Londoner) and thus knows better than these rural thickos about what's happening on the fens.
Estimated population density in the borough of Boston in 2016 was 185 per km2. This is in the bottom third of English authorities. I realise that fenland folk are unsociable but since I live in a borough that is 84 times more densely populated, I'm not going to take any nonsense about overcrowding.
As @not_on_fire comments, the problem is not one of overcrowding but inadequate infrastructure.
so where's the infrastructure ?
A much better question. All that focus on austerity had its consequences and one was that it led to the yokels revolting for exactly this reason.
So why is that wrong ? As the people who receive few benefits from mass immigration they are well within their rights to make their point and have it listened to. It was the demonisation of the issue which made the reaction more acute.
I receive few benefits from having a monarchy, and no-one listens to me. Life sucks.
In Barnet, where band F council tax is more than double Westminster's band H, the Tory council there have cut children's services, libraries, refuse collections and highways spending to the bone, so voters will hopefully view the message of prudent Conservatives delivering value and excellence as a complete myth.
But Jezza is unpopular with the significant Jewish population there so control is on a knife edge.
It is amazing the consistency of views one hears from inside the echo chamber Carlotta!
PMQs - Snap verdict: That wasn’t really a PMQs at all; we just had two PPBs (party political broadcasts) blaring away in tandem, doing little to enlighten anyone. Corbyn’s PPB was better on passion, and it covered wider ground - in fact, there was little area of public policy where he failed to castigate the government - but May probably did better on specific, memorable detail (her Hazelbourne Road anecdote).
Isn't that due to Westminster raking it in from car parking charges? .
Nah - Labour councils are run for the employees not the residents.
I had a Labour leaflet through the door boasting they had "given all council employees a minimum wage of £10/hr - vote for us"
Mindboggling how crass it came across.
Yes paying people a very modest living wage is crass.
Only on PB.
I don't think it is crass, but as someone working in local government (not today though, I hasten to add), there is certainly a market which sees any spending on employees, however reasonable, as outrageous. And it isn't merely a Tory vote, since I'm in a Tory area, and the people complaining about such things are against the council.
I just don't think that many people will be outraged at such a policy - yes they might be mad at waste, or the overall wage bill, but put the minimum wage figure to people and I doubt sufficient numbers think it is a counter productive point to make.
Over the last few years there has been a significant change in public attitudes about public sector workers. You just cant run this argument that the public sector is massively wasteful anymore. Most people don't buy it. 8 years of austerity is a long time. They've seen lots of people being made redundant and jobs being outsourced. Some people still believe it, but every time you make the argument, you alienate a whole load of other people. The local elections will be interesting.
It's not often that I agree with Jacob Rees-Mogg on Brexit matters, but I do think he and his fellow true-believers are right that the mooted 'Customs Partnership' idea is bonkers. It would involve charging EU external tariffs at our borders for imports from outside the EU, and then refunding them in part or entirely if we wanted to charge lower tariffs for goods used in the UK. It would also mean following EU regulations for imports, unless there was some complex scheme for tracking where things went.
It seems to be a scheme which has virtually all of the disadvantages of a full customs union, but with an extra layer of massive administrative complication.
It is amazing the consistency of views one hears from inside the echo chamber Carlotta!
PMQs - Snap verdict: That wasn’t really a PMQs at all; we just had two PPBs (party political broadcasts) blaring away in tandem, doing little to enlighten anyone. Corbyn’s PPB was better on passion, and it covered wider ground - in fact, there was little area of public policy where he failed to castigate the government - but May probably did better on specific, memorable detail (her Hazelbourne Road anecdote).
Isn't that due to Westminster raking it in from car parking charges? .
Nah - Labour councils are run for the employees not the residents.
I had a Labour leaflet through the door boasting they had "given all council employees a minimum wage of £10/hr - vote for us"
Mindboggling how crass it came across.
Yes paying people a very modest living wage is crass.
Only on PB.
I don't think it is crass, but as someone working in local government (not today though, I hasten to add), there is certainly a market which sees any spending on employees, however reasonable, as outrageous. And it isn't merely a Tory vote, since I'm in a Tory area, and the people complaining about such things are against the council.
I just don't think that many people will be outraged at such a policy - yes they might be mad at waste, or the overall wage bill, but put the minimum wage figure to people and I doubt sufficient numbers think it is a counter productive point to make.
Yes, those that rail against paying employees £10 an hour – which is peanuts in any case – are the crass ones. I am relieved that council pays at least that, why shouldn't they mention it?
Indeed so. It is a selling point to some, and a negative point to considerably fewer, I would guess, so it should be on their leaflets. I just don't rule out that it will be a negative point to some, across politics, but agree it is a small number.
I agree with much of this. But it brings us back to how do we do all of that if we are still in the Single Market for instance? I feel sure a large majority would love to have an income threshold that let in (say) Indian surgeons but kept out (say) Romanian Big Issue sellers, but the EU won't allow such a notion.
Nobody dreams of growing up to sell the Big Issue so the best approach is to ensure people have better options and also clamp down on any exploitation. Trying to control numbers or set thresholds is treating the symptom, not the cause.
Bollocks. There's no magic bullet, sure, you need to take a variety of measured actions, but just saying "yeah we can do all that, but closing the door partly is not part of it, not at all no way, it's untouchable" (ie the EU approach), is horseshit.
You have to consider the practicalities. To prevent people from Romania selling the Big Issue in this country you would need to stop them entering in the first place. That would mean a tourist visa regime for the whole EU. It's nuts and there are other things that would have a much greater impact. If you really want to create a 'hostile environment' why not take the Sarkozy approach?
My extended family is still based in Boston and as I've said before, the Poles aren't personally disliked by the Leavers who include virtually all of the adults in my family. (The odd younger member is excused their Remainer instincts as they'll probably grow out of it soon enough).
They drink hard and the drink-drive convictions have shot up, but no one denies they do work hard too
The problem is more the seeming lack of control over the numbers. There's been a massive increase in the population without a corresponding increase in the local facilities like schools and healthcare. The RC church now has four Sunday masses instead of the previous one.
I asked my young nephew (a Remainer in the referendum) who was unemployed for a while after graduating, why he didn't go on the land for a bit. "I can't speak Polish or Lithuanian" was his reply.
They feel the over-crowding and they don't trust any UK government to give a shit. Instead there's a feeling that it will fall over itself to suck up to the EU and be a perfect member. I can understand that feeling.
Mr Meeks knows it's racism pure and simple as he is much wiser (being a Londoner) and thus knows better than these rural thickos about what's happening on the fens.
Estimated population density in the borough of Boston in 2016 was 185 per km2. This is in the bottom third of English authorities. I realise that fenland folk are unsociable but since I live in a borough that is 84 times more densely populated, I'm not going to take any nonsense about overcrowding.
As @not_on_fire comments, the problem is not one of overcrowding but inadequate infrastructure.
so where's the infrastructure ?
A much better question. All that focus on austerity had its consequences and one was that it led to the yokels revolting for exactly this reason.
So why is that wrong ? As the people who receive few benefits from mass immigration they are well within their rights to make their point and have it listened to. It was the demonisation of the issue which made the reaction more acute.
I receive few benefits from having a monarchy, and no-one listens to me. Life sucks.
I myself would try to maintain immigration at sub-150k, by aggressive use of the income threshold. I would exclude students from the target. I would set up an independent body to monitor and set various thresholds. I would exclude migrants from benefits for five years. I would privilege, in order, fellow crown realms, the EU, the USA and India, and former Commonwealth countries. I would set up a migration infrastructure fund that is directly correlated to migration
Income based assessment is the best way and we should apply it globally and apply a cultural test for everyone who meets the requirements. That would keep net migration down to about the level you mention and we would only import wealth creating immigration. It's essentially what Switzerland does. Immigration needs to add economic value or it shouldn't happen.
Income is only one value of many. You also need to look at skills and what immigrants actually have to offer to the wider economy.
I would suggest that rigorously applying an income based requirement would simply lead to lots of immigration from people who work in financial services and other London based sectors, thus exacerbating the infrastructure and housing problems that already exist in the capital. Their value to the economy is based on consumption and the tax that they would pay (that is assuming that they are employed and actually paying tax here)
Whilst this benefits the economy in a lot of ways, there are lots of other ways in which immigrants can contribute to society. Not least because they add enormous value to sectors like the healthcare, the arts, culture and higher education. If you rigorously apply an income based requirement, then you are discriminating against those sectors.
More generally, I would suggest that we are far too dependent already on financial services, we need to urgently diversify our economy. We also need to ditch the thoroughly distasteful idea that people on high incomes are worth more to our society than others, which is what an income based immigration policy ultimately symbolises.
Sorry. They have to pay their way. I couldn't give a toss about arty cultural weavers adding to my cultural background.
I don’t find the immigration figures contradictory. It makes sense to privilege immigration from countries that share our cultural values, and I think most Brits are happy with individual immigrants.
What they have an issue with is “uncontrolled” immigrat
- immigration over 150k per year, without any grown up plans around infrastructure - the ability of immigrants to qualify for various support (tax credits, housing) without needing to “put in” - the lack of any coherent policy on illegal migration - specific issues relating to - sad to say - immigration from Islamic countries, ie crime, FGM, cousin marriage, child rape etc. - the preponderance of Eastern Europeans (Roma?) selling Big Issue - the rapid change in the make-up of certain areas, which bewilders especially the elderly.
We have at least moved on from the days of not mentioning immigration at all, for fear of racism. However I still don’t see any politician able to confidently address the issues above while maintaining the overriding *positive* case for immigration - skills, creativity, and relieving the demographic burden.
I myself would try to maintain immigration at sub-150k, by aggressive use of the income threshold. I would exclude students from the target. I would set up an independent body to monitor and set various thresholds. I would exclude migrants from benefits for five years. I would privilege, in order, fellow crown realms, the EU, the USA and India, and former Commonwealth countries. I would set up a migration infrastructure fund that is directly correlated to migration numbers. I would invest in hostile measures against illegal migration and against cultural practices which should not be tolerated in the U.K.
The above is broad stroke and the devil is in the detail. But if we want immigration - and we do - we must pay more to manage it and to make it “fair”. It’s fairness above all that pisses people off.
I agree with much of this. But it brings us back to how do we do all of that if we are still in the Single Market for instance? I feel sure a large majority would love to have an income threshold that let in (say) Indian surgeons but kept out (say) Romanian Big Issue sellers, but the EU won't allow such a notion.
I'm coming round to ID cards too if that's what it takes (though I Ioathe the idea in principle), and we would need a total overhaul of the benefits system (fair enough in my book).
I was surprised to be reminded in All Out War that Cameron negotiated a decent exemption from benefits for migrants.
But yes, net EU migration was running at a level that would have meant precious little room for Indian surgeons according to my proposed cap.
That’s a problem that Remainers need to tackle. I would be looking at exercising an “emergency break” somehow, also negotiated for if I recall.
I agree with much of this. But it brings us back to how do we do all of that if we are still in the Single Market for instance? I feel sure a large majority would love to have an income threshold that let in (say) Indian surgeons but kept out (say) Romanian Big Issue sellers, but the EU won't allow such a notion.
Nobody dreams of growing up to sell the Big Issue so the best approach is to ensure people have better options and also clamp down on any exploitation. Trying to control numbers or set thresholds is treating the symptom, not the cause.
Bollocks. There's no magic bullet, sure, you need to take a variety of measured actions, but just saying "yeah we can do all that, but closing the door partly is not part of it, not at all no way, it's untouchable" (ie the EU approach), is horseshit.
You have to consider the practicalities. To prevent people from Romania selling the Big Issue in this country you would need to stop them entering in the first place. That would mean a tourist visa regime for the whole EU. It's nuts and there are other things that would have a much greater impact. If you really want to create a 'hostile environment' why not take the Sarkozy approach?
My extended family is still based in Boston and as I've said before, the Poles aren't personally disliked by the Leavers who include virtually all of the adults in my family. (The odd younger member is excused their Remainer instincts as they'll probably grow out of it soon enough).
They drink hard and the drink-drive convictions have shot up, but no one denies they do work hard too
The problem is more the seeming lack of control over the numbers. There's been a massive increase in the population without a corresponding increase in the local facilities like schools and healthcare. The RC church now has four Sunday masses instead of the previous one.
I asked my young nephew (a Remainer in the referendum) who was unemployed for a while after graduating, why he didn't go on the land for a bit. "I can't speak Polish or Lithuanian" was his reply.
They feel the over-crowding and they don't trust any UK government to give a shit. Instead there's a feeling that it will fall over itself to suck up to the EU and be a perfect member. I can understand that feeling.
Mr Meeks knows it's racism pure and simple as he is much wiser (being a Londoner) and thus knows better than these rural thickos about what's happening on the fens.
Estimated population density in the borough of Boston in 2016 was 185 per km2. This is in the bottom third of English authorities. I realise that fenland folk are unsociable but since I live in a borough that is 84 times more densely populated, I'm not going to take any nonsense about overcrowding.
As @not_on_fire comments, the problem is not one of overcrowding but inadequate infrastructure.
so where's the infrastructure ?
A much better question. All that focus on austerity had its consequences and one was that it led to the yokels revolting for exactly this reason.
Yokels? Really?
You're such a ridiculously pompous snob.
OK, since you insist: "persons of straw mastication".
I agree with much of this. But it brings us back to how do we do all of that if we are still in the Single Market for instance? I feel sure a large majority would love to have an income threshold that let in (say) Indian surgeons but kept out (say) Romanian Big Issue sellers, but the EU won't allow such a notion.
Nobody dreams of growing up to sell the Big Issue so the best approach is to ensure people have better options and also clamp down on any exploitation. Trying to control numbers or set thresholds is treating the symptom, not the cause.
Bollocks. There's no magic bullet, sure, you need to take a variety of measured actions, but just saying "yeah we can do all that, but closing the door partly is not part of it, not at all no way, it's untouchable" (ie the EU approach), is horseshit.
You have to consider the practicalities. To prevent people from Romania selling the Big Issue in this country you would need to stop them entering in the first place. That would mean a tourist visa regime for the whole EU. It's nuts and there are other things that would have a much greater impact. If you really want to create a 'hostile environment' why not take the Sarkozy approach?
Over the last few years there has been a significant change in public attitudes about public sector workers. You just cant run this argument that the public sector is massively wasteful anymore. Most people don't buy it. 8 years of austerity is a long time. They've seen lots of people being made redundant and jobs being outsourced. Some people still believe it, but every time you make the argument, you alienate a whole load of other people. The local elections will be interesting.
Local government has very effectively, for the most part, handled austerity, which does show I think there was a lot of scope for cutting back. Whether it has gone too far in some places is a separate question, but I'd like to think you are right - particularly as many councils are pared to the bone.
I agree with much of this. But it brings us back to how do we do all of that if we are still in the Single Market for instance? I feel sure a large majority would love to have an income threshold that let in (say) Indian surgeons but kept out (say) Romanian Big Issue sellers, but the EU won't allow such a notion.
Nobody dreams of growing up to sell the Big Issue so the best approach is to ensure people have better options and also clamp down on any exploitation. Trying to control numbers or set thresholds is treating the symptom, not the cause.
Bollocks. There's no magic bullet, sure, you need to take a variety of measured actions, but just saying "yeah we can do all that, but closing the door partly is not part of it, not at all no way, it's untouchable" (ie the EU approach), is horseshit.
You have to consider the practicalities. To prevent people from Romania selling the Big Issue in this country you would need to stop them entering in the first place. That would mean a tourist visa regime for the whole EU. It's nuts and there are other things that would have a much greater impact. If you really want to create a 'hostile environment' why not take the Sarkozy approach?
I myself would try to maintain immigration at sub-150k, by aggressive use of the income threshold. I would exclude students from the target. I would set up an independent body to monitor and set various thresholds. I would exclude migrants from benefits for five years. I would privilege, in order, fellow crown realms, the EU, the USA and India, and former Commonwealth countries. I would set up a migration infrastructure fund that is directly correlated to migration
Income based assessment is the best way and we should apply it globally and apply a cultural test for everyone who meets the requirements. That would keep net migration down to about the level you mention and we would only import wealth creating immigration. It's essentially what Switzerland does. Immigration needs to add economic value or it shouldn't happen.
Income is only one value of many. You also need to look at skills and what immigrants actually have to offer to the wider economy.
I would suggest that rigorously applying an income based requirement would simply lead to lots of immigration from people who work in financial services and other London based sectors, thus exacerbating the infrastructure and housing problems that already exist in the capital. Their value to the economy is based on consumption and the tax that they would pay (that is assuming that they are employed and actually paying tax here)
Whilst this benefits the economy in a lot of ways, there are lots of other ways in which immigrants can contribute to society. Not least because they add enormous value to sectors like the healthcare, the arts, culture and higher education. If you rigorously apply an income based requirement, then you are discriminating against those sectors.
More generally, I would suggest that we are far too dependent already on financial services, we need to urgently diversify our economy. We also need to ditch the thoroughly distasteful idea that people on high incomes are worth more to our society than others, which is what an income based immigration policy ultimately symbolises.
It needs to be easy, not baroque. But of course there are certain skills we also need, agricultural labour, nursing etc.
I don’t find the immigration figures contradictory. It makes sense to privilege immigration from countries that share our cultural values, and I think most Brits are happy with individual immigrants.
What they have an issue with is “uncontrolled” immigration, by which I presume is meant:
- immigration over 150k per year, without any grown up plans around infrastructure - the ability of immigrants to qualify for various support (tax credits, housing) without needing to “put in” - the lack of any coherent policy on illegal migration - specific issues relating to - sad to say - immigration from Islamic countries, ie crime, FGM, cousin marriage, child rape etc. - the preponderance of Eastern Europeans (Roma?) selling Big Issue - the rapid change in the make-up of certain areas, which bewilders especially the elderly.
We have at least moved on from the days of not mentioning immigration at all, for fear of racism. However I still don’t see any politician able to confidently address the issues above while maintaining the overriding *positive* case for immigration - skills, creativity, and relieving the demographic burden.
I myself would try to maintain immigration at sub-150k, by aggressive use of the income threshold. I would exclude students from the target. I would set up an independent body to monitor and set various thresholds. I would exclude migrants from benefits for five years. I would privilege, in order, fellow crown realms, the EU, the USA and India, and former Commonwealth countries. I would set up a migration infrastructure fund that is directly correlated to migration numbers. I would invest in hostile measures against illegal migration and against cultural practices which should not be tolerated in the U.K.
The above is broad stroke and the devil is in the detail. But if we want immigration - and we do - we must pay more to manage it and to make it “fair”. It’s fairness above all that pisses people off.
I agree with all of that. I don't know anybody who is completely opposed to immigration. It's the free-for-all that pisses off people.
A party that could get immigration numbers down to something sustainable, be selective in who was admitted and remove illegal migrants, and mitigate the economic and social issues in the way you have described would be very popular I think.
I don’t find the immigration figures contradictory. It makes sense to privilege immigration from countries that share our cultural values, and I think most Brits are happy with individual immigrants.
What they have an issue with is “uncontrolled” immigration, by which I presume is meant:
- immigration over 150k per year, without any grown up plans around infrastructure - the ability of immigrants to qualify for various support (tax credits, housing) without needing to “put in” - the lack of any coherent policy on illegal migration - specific issues relating to - sad to say - immigration from Islamic countries, ie crime, FGM, cousin marriage, child rape etc. - the preponderance of Eastern Europeans (Roma?) selling Big Issue - the rapid change in the make-up of certain areas, which bewilders especially the elderly.
We have at least moved on from the days of not mentioning immigration at all, for fear of racism. However I still don’t see any politician able to confidently address the issues above while maintaining the overriding *positive* case for immigration - skills, creativity, and relieving the demographic burden.
I myself would try to maintain immigration at sub-150k, by aggressive use of the income threshold. I would exclude students from the target. I would set up an independent body to monitor and set various thresholds. I would exclude migrants from benefits for five years. I would privilege, in order, fellow crown realms, the EU, the USA and India, and former Commonwealth countries. I would set up a migration infrastructure fund that is directly correlated to migration numbers. I would invest in hostile measures against illegal migration and against cultural practices which should not be tolerated in the U.K.
The above is broad stroke and the devil is in the detail. But if we want immigration - and we do - we must pay more to manage it and to make it “fair”. It’s fairness above all that pisses people off.
Interesting to see the Polish so popular. It does look very much that the immigrants that Britons do not want are the duskier hued varieties, particularly Muslim ones.
The other interesting point is that none of the groups are very negative and most significantly positive, yet overall people feel that overall immigration has been bad for the country. There is more than a little cognitive dissonance about.
Actually I suspect it’s nothing to do with colour but to do with word association (in part driven by media)
Somalia is probably more kids messed up by war than Mo Farrah
Romanian - Big Issue sellers; Nigeria = fraud.
Interesting that there is a strong difference between Indians and Pakistani - I suspect down to terrorism vs local restaurant/pharmacy
My extended family is still based in Boston and as I've said before, the Poles aren't personally disliked by the Leavers who include virtually all of the adults in my family. (The odd younger member is excused their Remainer instincts as they'll probably grow out of it soon enough).
They drink hard and the drink-drive convictions have shot up, but no one denies they do work hard too
The problem is more the seeming lack of control over the numbers. There's been a massive increase in the population without a corresponding increase in the local facilities like schools and healthcare. The RC church now has four Sunday masses instead of the previous one.
I asked my young nephew (a Remainer in the referendum) who was unemployed for a while after graduating, why he didn't go on the land for a bit. "I can't speak Polish or Lithuanian" was his reply.
They feel the over-crowding and they don't trust any UK government to give a shit. Instead there's a feeling that it will fall over itself to suck up to the EU and be a perfect member. I can understand that feeling.
Mr Meeks knows it's racism pure and simple as he is much wiser (being a Londoner) and thus knows better than these rural thickos about what's happening on the fens.
Estimated population density in the borough of Boston in 2016 was 185 per km2. This is in the bottom third of English authorities. I realise that fenland folk are unsociable but since I live in a borough that is 84 times more densely populated, I'm not going to take any nonsense about overcrowding.
As @not_on_fire comments, the problem is not one of overcrowding but inadequate infrastructure.
so where's the infrastructure ?
A much better question. All that focus on austerity had its consequences and one was that it led to the yokels revolting for exactly this reason.
Yokels? Really?
You're such a ridiculously pompous snob.
OK, since you insist: "persons of straw mastication".
I myself would try to maintain immigration at sub-150k, by aggressive use of the income threshold. I would exclude students from the target. I would set up an independent body to monitor and set various thresholds. I would exclude migrants from benefits for five years. I would privilege, in order, fellow crown realms, the EU, the USA and India, and former Commonwealth countries. I would set up a migration infrastructure fund that is directly correlated to migration
Income based assessment is the best way and we should apply it globally and apply a cultural test for everyone who meets the requirements. That would keep net migration down to about the level you mention and we would only import wealth creating immigration. It's essentially what Switzerland does. Immigration needs to add economic value or it shouldn't happen.
Income is only one value of many. You also need to look at skills and what immigrants actually have to offer to the wider economy.
I would suggest that rigorously applying an income based requirement would simply lead to lots of immigration from people who work in financial services and other London based sectors, thus exacerbating the infrastructure and housing problems that already exist in the capital. Their value to the economy is based on consumption and the tax that they would pay (that is assuming that they are employed and actually paying tax here)
Whilst this benefits the economy in a lot of ways, there are lots of other ways in which immigrants can contribute to society. Not least because they add enormous value to sectors like the healthcare, the arts, culture and higher education. If you rigorously apply an income based requirement, then you are discriminating against those sectors.
More generally, I would suggest that we are far too dependent already on financial services, we need to urgently diversify our economy. We also need to ditch the thoroughly distasteful idea that people on high incomes are worth more to our society than others, which is what an income based immigration policy ultimately symbolises.
It needs to be easy, not baroque. But of course there are certain skills we also need, agricultural labour, nursing etc.
Your understanding of a key driver of the Leave vote is very much to your credit - your earlier post on immigration control is very, very good.
I myself would try to maintain immigration at sub-150k, by aggressive use of the income threshold. I would exclude students from the target. I would set up an independent body to monitor and set various thresholds. I would exclude migrants from benefits for five years. I would privilege, in order, fellow crown realms, the EU, the USA and India, and former Commonwealth countries. I would set up a migration infrastructure fund that is directly correlated to migration
Income based assessment is the best way and we should apply it globally and apply a cultural test for everyone who meets the requirements. That would keep net migration down to about the level you mention and we would only import wealth creating immigration. It's essentially what Switzerland does. Immigration needs to add economic value or it shouldn't happen.
Income is only one value of many. You also need to look at skills and what immigrants actually have to offer to the wider economy.
I would suggest that rigorously applying an income based requirement would simply lead to lots of immigration from people who work in financial services and other London based sectors, thus exacerbating the infrastructure and housing problems that already exist in the capital. Their value to the economy is based on consumption and the tax that they would pay (that is assuming that they are employed and actually paying tax here)
Whilst this benefits the economy in a lot of ways, there are lots of other ways in which immigrants can contribute to society. Not least because they add enormous value to sectors like the healthcare, the arts, culture and higher education. If you rigorously apply an income based requirement, then you are discriminating against those sectors.
More generally, I would suggest that we are far too dependent already on financial services, we need to urgently diversify our economy. We also need to ditch the thoroughly distasteful idea that people on high incomes are worth more to our society than others, which is what an income based immigration policy ultimately symbolises.
Sorry. They have to pay their way. I couldn't give a toss about arty cultural weavers adding to my cultural background.
If people are gainfully employed, earning a reasonable wage, then they are of course paying their way. There is a big difference between that, and saying "we need to limit the numbers at 100,000, therefore only people earning above £100k per annum can come in".
If you are only able assess the value of immigration, or any other area of public policy, in terms of a financial transaction, then I would suggest your world view is deeply flawed.
Indeed he allegedly went for the brake, and the EU said a flat no. Had he got it I'm sure he'd be PM now.
There is the nub. The EU didn't (and presumably don't) want to bend their principles on this and give the UK more "extra Wurst". They gambled to UK would not vote to leave. They were wrong. I'm sure deep down Merkel et al realise they cocked up (memoires will be interesting) but they can hardly offer it now.
So we are left with the same issue. As I see it your very good list of sensible suggestions can only be enacted legally outside the EU and indeed Single Market. Taking back control so to speak.
I myself would try to maintain immigration at sub-150k, by aggressive use of the income threshold. I would exclude students from the target. I would set up an independent body to monitor and set various thresholds. I would exclude migrants from benefits for five years. I would privilege, in order, fellow crown realms, the EU, the USA and India, and former Commonwealth countries. I would set up a migration infrastructure fund that is directly correlated to migration
Income based assessment is the best way and we should apply it globally and apply a cultural test for everyone who meets the requirements. That would keep net migration down to about the level you mention and we would only import wealth creating immigration. It's essentially what Switzerland does. Immigration needs to add economic value or it shouldn't happen.
Income is only one value of many. You also need to look at skills and what immigrants actually have to offer to the wider economy.
I would suggest that rigorously applying an income based requirement would simply lead to lots of immigration from people who work in financial services and other London based sectors, thus exacerbating the infrastructure and housing problems that already exist in the capital. Their value to the economy is based on consumption and the tax that they would pay (that is assuming that they are employed and actually paying tax here)
Whilst this benefits the economy in a lot of ways, there are lots of other ways in which immigrants can contribute to society. Not least because they add enormous value to sectors like the healthcare, the arts, culture and higher education. If you rigorously apply an income based requirement, then you are discriminating against those sectors.
More generally, I would suggest that we are far too dependent already on financial services, we need to urgently diversify our economy. We also need to ditch the thoroughly distasteful idea that people on high incomes are worth more to our society than others, which is what an income based immigration policy ultimately symbolises.
It needs to be easy, not baroque. But of course there are certain skills we also need, agricultural labour, nursing etc.
The whole reason an income based system works is that a labour shortage will cause wage costs to rise above the threshold, or if it's cheaper, training of British people to do the job. It is a self correcting system.
It's not often that I agree with Jacob Rees-Mogg on Brexit matters, but I do think he and his fellow true-believers are right that the mooted 'Customs Partnership' idea is bonkers. It would involve charging EU external tariffs at our borders for imports from outside the EU, and then refunding them in part or entirely if we wanted to charge lower tariffs for goods used in the UK. It would also mean following EU regulations for imports, unless there was some complex scheme for tracking where things went.
It seems to be a scheme which has virtually all of the disadvantages of a full customs union, but with an extra layer of massive administrative complication.
Almost (but not quite) as crackers as wanting to restrict the import into the EU of tens of thousands of £50 books to prevent the financing of terrorism.....
My extended family is still based in Boston and as I've said before, the Poles aren't personally disliked by the Leavers who include virtually all of the adults in my family. (The odd younger member is excused their Remainer instincts as they'll probably grow out of it soon enough).
They drink hard and the drink-drive convictions have shot up, but no one denies they do work hard too
The problem is more the seeming lack of control over the numbers. There's been a massive increase in the population without a corresponding increase in the local facilities like schools and healthcare. The RC church now has four Sunday masses instead of the previous one.
I asked my young nephew (a Remainer in the referendum) who was unemployed for a while after graduating, why he didn't go on the land for a bit. "I can't speak Polish or Lithuanian" was his reply.
They feel the over-crowding and they don't trust any UK government to give a shit. Instead there's a feeling that it will fall over itself to suck up to the EU and be a perfect member. I can understand that feeling.
Mr Meeks knows it's racism pure and simple as he is much wiser (being a Londoner) and thus knows better than these rural thickos about what's happening on the fens.
Estimated population density in the borough of Boston in 2016 was 185 per km2. This is in the bottom third of English authorities. I realise that fenland folk are unsociable but since I live in a borough that is 84 times more densely populated, I'm not going to take any nonsense about overcrowding.
As @not_on_fire comments, the problem is not one of overcrowding but inadequate infrastructure.
so where's the infrastructure ?
A much better question. All that focus on austerity had its consequences and one was that it led to the yokels revolting for exactly this reason.
So why is that wrong ? As the people who receive few benefits from mass immigration they are well within their rights to make their point and have it listened to. It was the demonisation of the issue which made the reaction more acute.
I receive few benefits from having a monarchy, and no-one listens to me. Life sucks.
I myself would try to maintain immigration at sub-150k, by aggressive use of the income threshold. I would exclude students from the target. I would set up an independent body to monitor and set various thresholds. I would exclude migrants from benefits for five years. I would privilege, in order, fellow crown realms, the EU, the USA and India, and former Commonwealth countries. I would set up a migration infrastructure fund that is directly correlated to migration
Income based assessment is the best way and we should apply it globally and apply a cultural test for everyone who meets the requirements. That would keep net migration down to about the level you mention and we would only import wealth creating immigration. It's essentially what Switzerland does. Immigration needs to add economic value or it shouldn't happen.
Income is only one value of many. You also need to look at skills and what immigrants actually have to offer to the wider economy.
I would suggest that rigorously applying an income based requirement would simply lead to lots of immigration from people who work in financial services and other London based sectors, thus exacerbating the infrastructure and housing problems that already exist in the capital. Their value to the economy is based on consumption and the tax that they would pay (that is assuming that they are employed and actually paying tax here)
Whilst this benefits the economy in a lot of ways, there are lots of other ways in which immigrants can contribute to society. Not least because they add enormous value to sectors like the healthcare, the arts, culture and higher education. If you rigorously apply an income based requirement, then you are discriminating against those sectors.
More generally, I would suggest that we are far too dependent already on financial services, we need to urgently diversify our economy. We also need to ditch the thoroughly distasteful idea that people on high incomes are worth more to our society than others, which is what an income based immigration policy ultimately symbolises.
It needs to be easy, not baroque. But of course there are certain skills we also need, agricultural labour, nursing etc.
The whole reason an income based system works is that a labour shortage will cause wage costs to rise above the threshold, or if it's cheaper, training of British people to do the job. It is a self correcting system.
Gosh. Does that mean, heaven forfend, that wages might rise after Brexit? Someone should have told us....
If people are gainfully employed, earning a reasonable wage, then they are of course paying their way. There is a big difference between that, and saying "we need to limit the numbers at 100,000, therefore only people earning above £100k per annum can come in".
If you are only able assess the value of immigration, or any other area of public policy, in terms of a financial transaction, then I would suggest your world view is deeply flawed.
The exception I'd make for income would be for necessary public sector workers such as nurses where you'd rate their 'market' value rather than actual NHS pay (Which the NHS being a big provider thereof should be able to get more cheaply) Of course I expect no such documents exist since it'd be used a stick by unions to drive up pay rather than examining the buying power of an org such as the NHS that in effect can/should act as a large supplier does to farmers in the grocery sector to staff.
Yes but "gainfully employed" is not what allows people in now. If a troupe of experimental community left handed Bulgarian one legged dancing jugglers can come here and pay their way to the satisfaction of HMRC above a sensible income threshold (£30k?) fine, no problem. Genuine welcome.
But that's not where we are now. The entire population from Tallinn to Sofia can rock up whenever, sign on, work cash in hand, live in a shed down the back of someone's garden and there's nothing we can do about it.
Indeed he allegedly went for the brake, and the EU said a flat no. Had he got it I'm sure he'd be PM now.
There is the nub. The EU didn't (and presumably don't) want to bend their principles on this and give the UK more "extra Wurst". They gambled to UK would not vote to leave. They were wrong. I'm sure deep down Merkel et al realise they cocked up (memoires will be interesting) but they can hardly offer it now.
So we are left with the same issue. As I see it your very good list of sensible suggestions can only be enacted legally outside the EU and indeed Single Market. Taking back control so to speak.
An emergency brake is by definition an emergency. To me, it’s an emergency that sentiment in the country got to a point where we decided we preferred to Brexit.
Easy to say from my comfortable chair, but I think we should have simply have exercised a brake regardless - a declaration of “war” if you like - and pushed it through to proper resolution. A fudge would surely have resulted, maybe not perfect but better than “this situation is endless and inescapable”.
It's not often that I agree with Jacob Rees-Mogg on Brexit matters, but I do think he and his fellow true-believers are right that the mooted 'Customs Partnership' idea is bonkers. It would involve charging EU external tariffs at our borders for imports from outside the EU, and then refunding them in part or entirely if we wanted to charge lower tariffs for goods used in the UK. It would also mean following EU regulations for imports, unless there was some complex scheme for tracking where things went.
It seems to be a scheme which has virtually all of the disadvantages of a full customs union, but with an extra layer of massive administrative complication.
Yes but "gainfully employed" is not what allows people in now. If a troupe of experimental community left handed Bulgarian one legged dancing jugglers can come here and pay their way to the satisfaction of HMRC above a sensible income threshold (£30k?) fine, no problem. Genuine welcome.
But that's not where we are now. The entire population from Tallinn to Sofia can rock up whenever, sign on, work cash in hand, live in a shed down the back of someone's garden and there's nothing we can do about it.
It's true but this is because we are one of the few EU countries where many benefits are available to all from day 1regardless of contributions. We could have changed this of course but just think of the outcry if 18 year old scroungers couldn't go straight onto benefits.
Income is only one value of many. You also need to look at skills and what immigrants actually have to offer to the wider economy.
I would suggest that rigorously applying an income based requirement would simply lead to lots of immigration from people who work in financial services and other London based sectors, thus exacerbating the infrastructure and housing problems that already exist in the capital. Their value to the economy is based on consumption and the tax that they would pay (that is assuming that they are employed and actually paying tax here)
Whilst this benefits the economy in a lot of ways, there are lots of other ways in which immigrants can contribute to society. Not least because they add enormous value to sectors like the healthcare, the arts, culture and higher education. If you rigorously apply an income based requirement, then you are discriminating against those sectors.
More generally, I would suggest that we are far too dependent already on financial services, we need to urgently diversify our economy. We also need to ditch the thoroughly distasteful idea that people on high incomes are worth more to our society than others, which is what an income based immigration policy ultimately symbolises.
It needs to be easy, not baroque. But of course there are certain skills we also need, agricultural labour, nursing etc.
The whole reason an income based system works is that a labour shortage will cause wage costs to rise above the threshold, or if it's cheaper, training of British people to do the job. It is a self correcting system.
A friend of mine came from over from China last decade. Studied a masters degree in architecture. Upon graduation, he got a job with an architecture firm in London, first as an intern earning below minimum wage for a year or so. The company then sponsored him to get a visa to stay in the UK, he was earning aroun 25-30 k, and he worked for 5 years, increasingly on projects in China, where he had contacts and work experience. A decade on, he is running the business in so far as it relates to China, eventually returning there to open an office, dividing his time between the two countries. It is bringing in millions of pounds for this British architecture firm.
You just can't train a British person for that kind of role, it isn't possible. But it isn't an uncommon story in the architectural sector. You have to listen to what these industries are saying, not rely on your own theories.
I myself would try to maintain immigration at sub-150k, by aggressive use of the income threshold. I would exclude students from the target. I would set up an independent body to monitor and set various thresholds. I would exclude migrants from benefits for five years. I would privilege, in order, fellow crown realms, the EU, the USA and India, and former Commonwealth countries. I would set up a migration infrastructure fund that is directly correlated to migration
Income based assessment is the best way and we should apply it globally and apply a cultural test for everyone who meets the requirements. That would keep net migration down to about the level you mention and we would only import wealth creating immigration. It's essentially what Switzerland does. Immigration needs to add economic value or it shouldn't happen.
Income is only one value of many. You also need to look at skills and what immigrants actually have to offer to the wider economy.
I would suggest that rigorously applying an income based requirement would simply lead to lots of immigration from people who work in financial services and other London based sectors, thus exacerbating the infrastructure and housing problems that already exist in the capital. Their value to the economy is based on consumption and the tax that they would pay (that is assuming that they are employed
More generally, I would suggest that we are far too dependent already on financial services, we need to urgently diversify our economy. We also need to ditch the thoroughly distasteful idea that people on high incomes are worth more to our society than others, which is what an income based immigration policy ultimately symbolises.
Sorry. They have to pay their way. I couldn't give a toss about arty cultural weavers adding to my cultural background.
If people are gainfully employed, earning a reasonable wage, then they are of course paying their way. There is a big difference between that, and saying "we need to limit the numbers at 100,000, therefore only people earning above £100k per annum can come in".
If you are only able assess the value of immigration, or any other area of public policy, in terms of a financial transaction, then I would suggest your world view is deeply flawed.
It would probably be closer to 50k. I agree money is not the only criteria - but it is the simplest to understand, easiest to implement, and perhaps fairest.
I myself would try to maintain immigration at sub-150k, by aggressive use of the income threshold. I would exclude students from the target. I would set up an independent body to monitor and set various thresholds. I would exclude migrants from benefits for five years. I would privilege, in order, fellow crown realms, the EU, the USA and India, and former Commonwealth countries. I would set up a migration infrastructure fund that is directly correlated to migration
Income based assessment is the best way and we should apply it globally and apply a cultural test for everyone who meets the requirements. That would keep net migration down to about the level you mention and we would only import wealth creating immigration. It's essentially what Switzerland does. Immigration needs to add economic value or it shouldn't happen.
Income is only one value of many. You also need to look at skills and what immigrants actually have to offer to the wider economy.
I would suggest that rigorously applying an income based requirement would simply lead to lots of immigration from people who work in financial services and other London based sectors, thus exacerbating the infrastructure and housing problems that already exist in the capital. Their value to the economy is based on consumption and the tax that they would pay (that is assuming that they are employed and actually paying tax here)
Whilst this benefits the economy in a lot of ways, there are lots of other ways in which immigrants can contribute to society. Not least because they add enormous value to sectors like the healthcare, the arts, culture and higher education. If you rigorously apply an income based requirement, then you are discriminating against those sectors.
More generally, I would suggest that we are far too dependent already on financial services, we need to urgently diversify our economy. We also need to ditch the thoroughly distasteful idea that people on high incomes are worth more to our society than others, which is what an income based immigration policy ultimately symbolises.
It needs to be easy, not baroque. But of course there are certain skills we also need, agricultural labour, nursing etc.
The whole reason an income based system works is that a labour shortage will cause wage costs to rise above the threshold, or if it's cheaper, training of British people to do the job. It is a self correcting system.
For some jobs, but I expect in a globalised market what would really happen is whole industries would move out of the UK.
Just signed up in the crucial role of polling station teller in compliance with all electoral registration.I am in an ideal place to call the election after 7pm.Hopefully,a Tory will turn up and we can share some local intel.Otherwise,see you all in WH tomorrow for winnings collection.
I doubt anybody around the negotiating table Cameron, Merkel, Juncker actually thought we'd leave, so meaningful "reform" was dismissed from their minds. So we are where we are.
I myself would try to maintain immigration at sub-150k, by aggressive use of the income threshold. I would exclude students from the target. I would set up an independent body to monitor and set various thresholds. I would exclude migrants from benefits for five years. I would privilege, in order, fellow crown realms, the EU, the USA and India, and former Commonwealth countries. I would set up a migration infrastructure fund that is directly correlated to migration
Income based assessment is the best way and we should apply it globally and apply a cultural test for everyone who meets the requirements. That would keep net migration down to about the level you mention and we would only import wealth creating immigration. It's essentially what Switzerland does. Immigration needs to add economic value or it shouldn't happen.
Income is only one value of many. You also need to look at skills and what immigrants actually have to offer to the wider economy.
I would suggest that rigorously applying an income based requirement would simply lead to lots of immigration from people who work in financial services and other London based sectors, thus exacerbating the infrastructure and housing problems that already exist in the capital. Their value to the economy is based on consumption and the tax that they would pay (that is assuming that they are employed and actually paying tax here)
Whilst this benefits the economy in a lot of ways, there are lots of other ways in which immigrants can contribute to society. Not least because they add enormous value to sectors like the healthcare, the arts, culture and higher education. If you rigorously apply an income based requirement, then you are discriminating against those sectors.
More generally, I would suggest that we are far too dependent already on financial services, we need to urgently diversify our economy. We also need to ditch the thoroughly distasteful idea that people on high incomes are worth more to our society than others, which is what an income based immigration policy ultimately symbolises.
It needs to be easy, not baroque. But of course there are certain skills we also need, agricultural labour, nursing etc.
Your understanding of a key driver of the Leave vote is very much to your credit - your earlier post on immigration control is very, very good.
Thanks. I know it’s an uncharacteristic lapse.
Don’t worry, I’ll get back to castigating Brexit and Brexiters in due course.
Makes no sense, given that UKIP will be contributing around 120 seats to the pool. It doesn't inspire confidence.
Note the table at the end of the article, showing the outcome vs forecasts in 2017. Rallings & Thrasher were miles out then.
Executive summary: no-one has a clue!
Edit: Ah yes, looks like a typo. That makes much more sense.
Are there fewer seats in total this time? I think Birmingham has had its number of councillors cut - have other councils fared similarly / been merged / abolished?
I don't think that the boundary changes in Leeds have resulted in a reduction in seats.
No, Leeds hasn't (declaration of interest - I'm a candidate there this year).
May I ask which ward?
Middleton Park. I hope I'm not breaking any confidences when I say that I don't expect to be elected.
Thanks. We can both be gallant losers then.
I am hoping to beat the SDP candidate (isn't it amazing how some parties refuse to die). Where are you standing?
I'm making up the numbers in one of the Craven wards.
Lovely part of the world.
I'd say 'good luck' but you know I don't really mean it and nor, do i suspect, do you want it!
Income is only one value of many. You also need to look at skills and what immigrants actually have to offer to the wider economy.
I would suggest that rigorously applying an income based requirement would simply lead to lots of immigration from people who work in financial services and other London based sectors, thus exacerbating the infrastructure and housing problems that already exist in the capital. Their value to the economy is based on consumption and the tax that they would pay (that is assuming that they are employed and actually paying tax here)
Whilst this benefits the economy in a lot of ways, there are lots of other ways in which immigrants can contribute to society. Not least because they add enormous value to sectors like the healthcare, the arts, culture and higher education. If you rigorously apply an income based requirement, then you are discriminating against those sectors.
More generally, I would suggest that we are far too dependent already on financial services, we need to urgently diversify our economy. We also need to ditch the thoroughly distasteful idea that people on high incomes are worth more to our society than others, which is what an income based immigration policy ultimately symbolises.
It needs to be easy, not baroque. But of course there are certain skills we also need, agricultural labour, nursing etc.
The whole reason an income based system works is that a labour shortage will cause wage costs to rise above the threshold, or if it's cheaper, training of British people to do the job. It is a self correcting system.
A friend of mine came from over from China last decade. Studied a masters degree in architecture. Upon graduation, he got a job with an architecture firm in London, first as an intern earning below minimum wage for a year or so. The company then sponsored him to get a visa to stay in the UK, he was earning aroun 25-30 k, and he worked for 5 years, increasingly on projects in China, where he had contacts and work experience. A decade on, he is running the business in so far as it relates to China, eventually returning there to open an office, dividing his time between the two countries. It is bringing in millions of pounds for this British architecture firm.
You just can't train a British person for that kind of role, it isn't possible. But it isn't an uncommon story in the architectural sector. You have to listen to what these industries are saying, not rely on your own theories.
A (British) friend of mine is a young architect who spent 3 years in China/HK - he now works in London. Sounds like he would be eminently qualified for that role.
Income is only one value of many. You also need to look at skills and what immigrants actually have to offer to the wider economy.
I would suggest that rigorously applying an income based requirement would simply lead to lots of immigration from people who work in financial services and other London based sectors, thus exacerbating the infrastructure and housing problems that already exist in the capital. Their value to the economy is based on consumption and the tax that they would pay (that is assuming that they are employed and actually paying tax here)
Whilst this benefits the economy in a lot of ways, there are lots of other ways in which immigrants can contribute to society. Not least because they add enormous value to sectors like the healthcare, the arts, culture and higher education. If you rigorously apply an income based requirement, then you are discriminating against those sectors.
More generally, I would suggest that we are far too dependent already on financial services, we need to urgently diversify our economy. We also need to ditch the thoroughly distasteful idea that people on high incomes are worth more to our society than others, which is what an income based immigration policy ultimately symbolises.
It needs to be easy, not baroque. But of course there are certain skills we also need, agricultural labour, nursing etc.
The whole reason an income based system works is that a labour shortage will cause wage costs to rise above the threshold, or if it's cheaper, training of British people to do the job. It is a self correcting system.
A friend of mine came from over from China last decade. Studied a masters degree in architecture. Upon graduation, he got a job with an architecture firm in London, first as an intern earning below minimum wage for a year or so. The company then sponsored him to get a visa to stay in the UK, he was earning aroun 25-30 k, and he worked for 5 years, increasingly on projects in China, where he had contacts and work experience. A decade on, he is running the business in so far as it relates to China, eventually returning there to open an office, dividing his time between the two countries. It is bringing in millions of pounds for this British architecture firm.
You just can't train a British person for that kind of role, it isn't possible. But it isn't an uncommon story in the architectural sector. You have to listen to what these industries are saying, not rely on your own theories.
Great. So the system worked. Super, let's have more bright well connected Chinese people.
What does it have to do with having an open door to a group of blokes pestering me to have my car washed in Asda's car park?
A friend of mine came from over from China last decade. Studied a masters degree in architecture. Upon graduation, he got a job with an architecture firm in London, first as an intern earning below minimum wage for a year or so. The company then sponsored him to get a visa to stay in the UK, he was earning aroun 25-30 k, and he worked for 5 years, increasingly on projects in China, where he had contacts and work experience. A decade on, he is running the business in so far as it relates to China, eventually returning there to open an office, dividing his time between the two countries. It is bringing in millions of pounds for this British architecture firm.
You just can't train a British person for that kind of role, it isn't possible. But it isn't an uncommon story in the architectural sector. You have to listen to what these industries are saying, not rely on your own theories.
Being in the EU and putting EU immigration first makes that much harder to do, so hopefully Brexit will open up these opportunities more.
I myself would try to maintain immigration at sub-150k, by aggressive use of the income threshold. I would exclude students from the target. I would set up an independent body to monitor and set various thresholds. I would exclude migrants from benefits for five years. I would privilege, in order, fellow crown realms, the EU, the USA and India, and former Commonwealth countries. I would set up a migration infrastructure fund that is directly correlated to migration
Income based assessment is the best way and we should apply it globally and apply a cultural test for everyone who meets the requirements. That would keep net migration down to about the level you mention and we would only import wealth creating immigration. It's essentially what Switzerland does. Immigration needs to add economic value or it shouldn't happen.
Income is only one value of many. You also need to look at skills and what immigrants actually have to offer to the wider economy.
I would suggest that rigorously applying an income based requirement would simply lead to lots of immigration from people who work in financial services and other London based sectors, thus exacerbating the infrastructure and housing problems that already exist in the capital. Their value to the economy is based on consumption and the tax that they would pay (that is assuming that they are employed and actually paying tax here)
Whilst this benefits the economy in a lot of ways, there are lots of other ways in which immigrants can contribute to society. Not least because they add enormous value to sectors like the healthcare, the arts, culture and higher education. If you rigorously apply an income based requirement, then you are discriminating against those sectors.
More generally, I would suggest that we are far too dependent already on financial services, we need to urgently diversify our economy. We also need to ditch the thoroughly distasteful idea that people on high incomes are worth more to our society than others, which is what an income based immigration policy ultimately symbolises.
It needs to be easy, not baroque. But of course there are certain skills we also need, agricultural labour, nursing etc.
Your understanding of a key driver of the Leave vote is very much to your credit - your earlier post on immigration control is very, very good.
Thanks. I know it’s an uncharacteristic lapse.
Don’t worry, I’ll get back to castigating Brexit and Brexiters in due course.
A friend of mine came from over from China last decade. Studied a masters degree in architecture. Upon graduation, he got a job with an architecture firm in London, first as an intern earning below minimum wage for a year or so. The company then sponsored him to get a visa to stay in the UK, he was earning aroun 25-30 k, and he worked for 5 years, increasingly on projects in China, where he had contacts and work experience. A decade on, he is running the business in so far as it relates to China, eventually returning there to open an office, dividing his time between the two countries. It is bringing in millions of pounds for this British architecture firm.
You just can't train a British person for that kind of role, it isn't possible. But it isn't an uncommon story in the architectural sector. You have to listen to what these industries are saying, not rely on your own theories.
Being in the EU and putting EU immigration first makes that much harder to do, so hopefully Brexit will open up these opportunities more.
This is a category error. EU citizens are exercising their rights as citizens within a single market. Nobody thought the EU had any relevance at all to immigration policy before expansion.
This sort of thing goes down very well back home. Macron sees a gap (the withdrawal of Britain as a vehicle of influence in Europe) and he’s trying to fill it.
His accent is awful though. Quite painful. “Fought” sounds like “fart”.
Yes but "gainfully employed" is not what allows people in now. If a troupe of experimental community left handed Bulgarian one legged dancing jugglers can come here and pay their way to the satisfaction of HMRC above a sensible income threshold (£30k?) fine, no problem. Genuine welcome.
But that's not where we are now. The entire population from Tallinn to Sofia can rock up whenever, sign on, work cash in hand, live in a shed down the back of someone's garden and there's nothing we can do about it.
There is a major difference between the system that exists under free movement, and which was rejected with the Brexit vote, and any system of controlled immigration based on working visas. All I am saying is that the latter should not be entirely driven by an income requirement.
A friend of mine came from over from China last decade. Studied a masters degree in architecture. Upon graduation, he got a job with an architecture firm in London, first as an intern earning below minimum wage for a year or so. The company then sponsored him to get a visa to stay in the UK, he was earning aroun 25-30 k, and he worked for 5 years, increasingly on projects in China, where he had contacts and work experience. A decade on, he is running the business in so far as it relates to China, eventually returning there to open an office, dividing his time between the two countries. It is bringing in millions of pounds for this British architecture firm.
You just can't train a British person for that kind of role, it isn't possible. But it isn't an uncommon story in the architectural sector. You have to listen to what these industries are saying, not rely on your own theories.
Being in the EU and putting EU immigration first makes that much harder to do, so hopefully Brexit will open up these opportunities more.
This is a category error. EU citizens are exercising their rights as citizens within a single market. Nobody thought the EU had any relevance at all to immigration policy before expansion.
It didn't 1973 -2004 because freedom of movement (or was it right to work before it seemingly morphed) was between fairly even economies pre the Easy Jet age.
Well it bloody well does now, of course. Anyone with half a brain could see the huge magnetic effect of a big wage disparity post 2004. And that would've been before the UK, Ireland, and Sweden alone gave full access at once.
Blair et al of course did not possess half a brain.
It's not often that I agree with Jacob Rees-Mogg on Brexit matters, but I do think he and his fellow true-believers are right that the mooted 'Customs Partnership' idea is bonkers. It would involve charging EU external tariffs at our borders for imports from outside the EU, and then refunding them in part or entirely if we wanted to charge lower tariffs for goods used in the UK. It would also mean following EU regulations for imports, unless there was some complex scheme for tracking where things went.
It seems to be a scheme which has virtually all of the disadvantages of a full customs union, but with an extra layer of massive administrative complication.
Indeed we might as well just stay in the Customs Union.
Well said.
Presumably that's why some are pushing for it.
Problem is that the default position is we have hard Brexit if no deal is in place, so a deal acceptable to leavers is what needs to be proposed.
I think such an arrangement might have worked with different parliamentary arithmetic, but as things stand its a high stakes game where some are pushing it as a hope of remaining after all, at the risk of no deal being possible.
For some jobs, but I expect in a globalised market what would really happen is whole industries would move out of the UK.
It's possible, but if those industries are not possible to maintain in the UK whilst paying people a proper wage then it might make sense to use the capacity elsewhere.
However, people say that about Switzerland all the time and it never really happens.
It would probably be closer to 50k. I agree money is not the only criteria - but it is the simplest to understand, easiest to implement, and perhaps fairest.
I don't agree with that at all.
For a start, there are major regional variations on salaries, largely based on the differences in wages between London and the regions. A 50k requirement would effectively limit immigration to very highly skilled and specialised jobs, and the financial services sector (and its various spin offs), mostly in London. It would not benefit many industries where there is a skill shortage eg architecture, or nursing. It would also arguably hold British people back, as there would be massive competition for jobs over a certain salary level. I don't see how that would be fair.
I don't think that 'simple to understand' and 'easy to implement' should be the guiding principles for an immigration policy.
Yes but "gainfully employed" is not what allows people in now. If a troupe of experimental community left handed Bulgarian one legged dancing jugglers can come here and pay their way to the satisfaction of HMRC above a sensible income threshold (£30k?) fine, no problem. Genuine welcome.
But that's not where we are now. The entire population from Tallinn to Sofia can rock up whenever, sign on, work cash in hand, live in a shed down the back of someone's garden and there's nothing we can do about it.
There is a major difference between the system that exists under free movement, and which was rejected with the Brexit vote, and any system of controlled immigration based on working visas. All I am saying is that the latter should not be entirely driven by an income requirement.
To be fair, you are right it can't be 100%. Seasonal fruit pickers to choose an obvious example. But as others have said it cannot be "baroque". Control and transparency are what are needed. Money (with very limited exceptions) is a pretty good proxy to start with.
Once people feel more at ease with the whole set up, we could go from there. But control needs to be asserted first.
@Survation 9h9 hours ago More London Council Election Polling. On behalf of @4in10, 81% of Londoners Tell Survation Local Councils should pay the real living wage:
Comments
Edit: Oh, the poster isn't Hazelbourne
Two streets, same point...
"He dictated that whole letter. I didn't write that letter," Bornstein told CNN on Tuesday. "I just made it up as I went along."
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/01/politics/harold-bornstein-trump-letter/index.html
Why am I unsurprised that the odious Burnham - a man who values the reputation of the NHS over patient safety - might be involved?
As @not_on_fire comments, the problem is not one of overcrowding but inadequate infrastructure.
Wouldnt be surprised to see Labour lose as many as it holds
Only on PB.
You might lose, but being green on him at present odds to my mind would be very timid.
Osborne backs the Tories
You're such a ridiculously pompous snob.
"As @not_on_fire comments, the problem is not one of overcrowding but inadequate infrastructure."
Overcrowding depends on what you're used to. You Londoners are used to living cheek by jowl.
On a serious point, I don't disagree with you. Some of the immigrants can be a little antisocial and a few of the locals will be a little racist, you'll find that everywhere. But Poles and Lithuanians are white, Christian and culturally similar. The complaints would be the same if a shedload of cockneys turned up without sufficient provision made for them.
When it comes to the EU immigration, it seems the government attitude has been "suck it up."
The response ... 76% Leave.
I would suggest that rigorously applying an income based requirement would simply lead to lots of immigration from people who work in financial services and other London based sectors, thus exacerbating the infrastructure and housing problems that already exist in the capital. Their value to the economy is based on consumption and the tax that they would pay (that is assuming that they are employed and actually paying tax here)
Whilst this benefits the economy in a lot of ways, there are lots of other ways in which immigrants can contribute to society. Not least because they add enormous value to sectors like the healthcare, the arts, culture and higher education. If you rigorously apply an income based requirement, then you are discriminating against those sectors.
More generally, I would suggest that we are far too dependent already on financial services, we need to urgently diversify our economy. We also need to ditch the thoroughly distasteful idea that people on high incomes are worth more to our society than others, which is what an income based immigration policy ultimately symbolises.
I just don't think that many people will be outraged at such a policy - yes they might be mad at waste, or the overall wage bill, but put the minimum wage figure to people and I doubt sufficient numbers think it is a counter productive point to make.
You can stop the Big Issue sellers if we have a proper ID regime (hence my grudging acceptance of this), and yes that means strictly deporting those in the future who do not comply. I take you point about current Home Office fitness but anything is possible if the will is there to do it and the resources given.
I have learnt from here about the Swiss approach which effectively sub contracts second line immigration control to employers on pain of stiff penalty. Seems perfectly good. It helps too that their "NHS" is set up differently to ours and is I believe insurance based ( I cant see that happening here if I am honest). What I will not accept is a notion "it's too hard" because the EU says it is, so we've just got to put up with mass unskilled European migration forever, uncontrolled, and hang the consequences for people who object, and even to discriminate in favour of them, whilst leaving the Indian cancer specialists at the gates.
It seems to be a scheme which has virtually all of the disadvantages of a full customs union, but with an extra layer of massive administrative complication.
More details here:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/05/01/eurosceptic-tory-mps-say-customs-partnership-unworkable/
He's always been a smooth talker, who women find irresistible.
But Jezza is unpopular with the significant Jewish population there so control is on a knife edge.
Should be an interesting watch
Well said.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_Roma_migrants_from_France
start a petition
chances are you'll lose
But yes, net EU migration was running at a level that would have meant precious little room for Indian surgeons according to my proposed cap.
That’s a problem that Remainers need to tackle. I would be looking at exercising an “emergency break” somehow, also negotiated for if I recall.
But of course there are certain skills we also need, agricultural labour, nursing etc.
A party that could get immigration numbers down to something sustainable, be selective in who was admitted and remove illegal migrants, and mitigate the economic and social issues in the way you have described would be very popular I think.
;-)
Somalia is probably more kids messed up by war than Mo Farrah
Romanian - Big Issue sellers; Nigeria = fraud.
Interesting that there is a strong difference between Indians and Pakistani - I suspect down to terrorism vs local restaurant/pharmacy
If you are only able assess the value of immigration, or any other area of public policy, in terms of a financial transaction, then I would suggest your world view is deeply flawed.
@Gardenwalker
Indeed he allegedly went for the brake, and the EU said a flat no. Had he got it I'm sure he'd be PM now.
There is the nub. The EU didn't (and presumably don't) want to bend their principles on this and give the UK more "extra Wurst". They gambled to UK would not vote to leave. They were wrong. I'm sure deep down Merkel et al realise they cocked up (memoires will be interesting) but they can hardly offer it now.
So we are left with the same issue. As I see it your very good list of sensible suggestions can only be enacted legally outside the EU and indeed Single Market. Taking back control so to speak.
https://twitter.com/EmmanuelMacron/status/991652565417906176
Almost (but not quite) as crackers as wanting to restrict the import into the EU of tens of thousands of £50 books to prevent the financing of terrorism.....
I thought he'd be licking Mrs Turnbull by now
Oh wait, someone did - Stuart Rose!
Of course I expect no such documents exist since it'd be used a stick by unions to drive up pay rather than examining the buying power of an org such as the NHS that in effect can/should act as a large supplier does to farmers in the grocery sector to staff.
Yes but "gainfully employed" is not what allows people in now. If a troupe of experimental community left handed Bulgarian one legged dancing jugglers can come here and pay their way to the satisfaction of HMRC above a sensible income threshold (£30k?) fine, no problem. Genuine welcome.
But that's not where we are now. The entire population from Tallinn to Sofia can rock up whenever, sign on, work cash in hand, live in a shed down the back of someone's garden and there's nothing we can do about it.
However, the swing will not be uniform.
Easy to say from my comfortable chair, but I think we should have simply have exercised a brake regardless - a declaration of “war” if you like - and pushed it through to proper resolution. A fudge would surely have resulted, maybe not perfect but better than “this situation is endless and inescapable”.
Presumably that's why some are pushing for it.
Problem is that the default position is we have hard Brexit if no deal is in place, so a deal acceptable to leavers is what needs to be proposed.
You just can't train a British person for that kind of role, it isn't possible. But it isn't an uncommon story in the architectural sector. You have to listen to what these industries are saying, not rely on your own theories.
I agree money is not the only criteria - but it is the simplest to understand, easiest to implement, and perhaps fairest.
@ Gardenwalker
Yes I can see that, but the past is the past.
I doubt anybody around the negotiating table Cameron, Merkel, Juncker actually thought we'd leave, so meaningful "reform" was dismissed from their minds. So we are where we are.
Don’t worry, I’ll get back to castigating Brexit and Brexiters in due course.
I'd say 'good luck' but you know I don't really mean it and nor, do i suspect, do you want it!
What does it have to do with having an open door to a group of blokes pestering me to have my car washed in Asda's car park?
Being in the EU and putting EU immigration first makes that much harder to do, so hopefully Brexit will open up these opportunities more.
His accent is awful though. Quite painful. “Fought” sounds like “fart”.
Well it bloody well does now, of course. Anyone with half a brain could see the huge magnetic effect of a big wage disparity post 2004. And that would've been before the UK, Ireland, and Sweden alone gave full access at once.
Blair et al of course did not possess half a brain.
However, people say that about Switzerland all the time and it never really happens.
For a start, there are major regional variations on salaries, largely based on the differences in wages between London and the regions. A 50k requirement would effectively limit immigration to very highly skilled and specialised jobs, and the financial services sector (and its various spin offs), mostly in London. It would not benefit many industries where there is a skill shortage eg architecture, or nursing. It would also arguably hold British people back, as there would be massive competition for jobs over a certain salary level. I don't see how that would be fair.
I don't think that 'simple to understand' and 'easy to implement' should be the guiding principles for an immigration policy.
Once people feel more at ease with the whole set up, we could go from there. But control needs to be asserted first.
@Survation
9h9 hours ago
More
London Council Election Polling. On behalf of @4in10, 81% of Londoners Tell Survation Local Councils should pay the real living wage: