Which is exactly how every other country in the world operates an immigration programme - based on those who can be net contributors or who have specific skills to fill a shortage.
Every other country apart from the EU27, Australia, New Zealand, Israel and probably a few others.
There is often a claim for public-sector workers to be treated differently, most commonly on the grounds that the value of the work is not reflected in the salaries paid. The MAC does not think the public sector should be treated differently: it would be better to pay public sector workers salaries that reflect the value of the work.
How much is a social worker "worth"? The problem is most Councils can't afford to pay the Private Sector rate and that is why there are key skills shortages. For example, an experienced property surveyor isn't going to join a Council when he or she can earn so much more in the West End or Docklands.
A lot of public sector jobs have no private sector equivalent so where is the correct salary? Should we not be paying firefighters, police officers and ambulance staff enough to enable them to live near where they work and not have to moonlight?
The correct salary is the minimum amount required to attract and retain good employees. There's no mystery to it.
Which is exactly how every other country in the world operates an immigration programme - based on those who can be net contributors or who have specific skills to fill a shortage.
Every other country apart from the EU27, Australia, New Zealand, Israel and probably a few others.
Australia doesn't operate an immigration system based on skills?
Which is exactly how every other country in the world operates an immigration programme - based on those who can be net contributors or who have specific skills to fill a shortage.
Every other country apart from the EU27, Australia, New Zealand, Israel and probably a few others.
Australia doesn't operate an immigration system based on skills?
UN Migrant stock data for 2017 shows that 26% of migrants who were born in the UK and living abroad were living in another EU country (6% of which lived in Ireland). The UK had a smaller proportion of emigrants living in another EU country than any other EU country. By comparison, 44% of those born in Germany emigrate to another EU country, and 49% of those born in France.
So 20% of UK emigrants might be affected by this - and ±75% are already used to work permits / visa restrictions when they do emigrate. A bigger issue in the minds of the Tuscan second home owning commentariat than in ordinary voters, I suspect.
If they own a second home in Tuscany, they will be fine - they have the money. So the likes of Lord Lawson will be able to continue to live in their French chateaux while insisting that they cannot be joined by the riff-raff. Phew. No, it will be ordinary people who have saved for years in the hope of retiring to the sun who will be affected.
Why would you have to save for years to retire to Spain?
To buy somewhere to live, perhaps? Look, if you want to pretend that a lot of very ordinary people do not dream of retiring to the south of Europe, then so be it.
Yes, the net effect of ending freedom of movement will be to swap a bunch of young would-be immigrant workers for a bunch of would-be expat pensioners.
So we would keep more rich people but not get as many poor people ;-)
I don't think the would-be ex-pat retirees in Spain, etc. are necessarily rich. But they will be wanting medical care and somewhere to live in the UK. Proper houses, too - they won't put up with living in shared bedsits. So more pressure on the NHS and housing.
And they will be spending their pensions and savings and paying taxes in Britain.
Most already pay taxes in the UK - that is the system for all l'state' pensions - my teachers one for example. A significant proportion of expats in Spain where I live - barely survive on their incomes and would struggle much more in the UK where basic living costs are about 24-30% higher.
Just a wild thought. Is it possible for the No Confidence vote to be triggered by accident, say by one MP sending in a letter when one hasn't got around to removing one? Would the chairman of the 1922 committee check with all the letter senders that they still mean it? Is it common knowledge amongst Tory MPs as to the number submitted or does nobody know?
I suspect your answer depends on the mood of the chair of the 1922 committee. If he wants rid or to kill the discussions for a year he could just say I have the necessary letters so we need a vote but I suspect he would be calling every MP and doublechecking if their intentions still hold (I did say remain but that seemed rather inappropriate)..
Is it really likely just 1 letter would tip the balance? I've always assumed that if there were to be a putsch it would be more organised than that. Dozens of letters going in on the same day.
The thing to watch is this: will the way the final deal is put in place leave Westminster bound by that decision? The Times headline today is of Barnier "vowing" that May's successor will not be able to unpick the Brexit deal. He wants "a cast iron guarantee" - suggesting a woeful modern history of the use of that term and Conservative Party leaders.
If looks like May is prepared to concede a shit deal in perpetuity, I suspect that will be the trigger for the letters to go in. And that could happen by November.
This is exactly the problem. The withdrawal agreement is an international treaty. The provisions for ending such a treaty need to be in the treaty itself. If there is no way to end the treaty, it will bind the UK and future Parliaments....
Why ? Countries can, and do abrogate treaties which have no such provisions.
Perhaps you'd like to point me to the relevant part of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties that would allow us to walk away from agreed Brexit terms?
Perhaps you'd like to point to the consistent enforcement of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties that would indicate walking away would be any kind of problem in real life.
Excuse me, it's Remainers who have been screaming how we couldn't possibly walk away from the EU without writing out a cheque.....for our obligations under Treaties.
Which is exactly how every other country in the world operates an immigration programme - based on those who can be net contributors or who have specific skills to fill a shortage.
Every other country apart from the EU27, Australia, New Zealand, Israel and probably a few others.
Australia doesn't operate an immigration system based on skills?
Yes of course it does. That is why they let me in.
It is a points system combined with a list of occupations in demand. There is a family stream like everywhere else.
Just a wild thought. Is it possible for the No Confidence vote to be triggered by accident, say by one MP sending in a letter when one hasn't got around to removing one? Would the chairman of the 1922 committee check with all the letter senders that they still mean it? Is it common knowledge amongst Tory MPs as to the number submitted or does nobody know?
I suspect your answer depends on the mood of the chair of the 1922 committee. If he wants rid or to kill the discussions for a year he could just say I have the necessary letters so we need a vote but I suspect he would be calling every MP and doublechecking if their intentions still hold (I did say remain but that seemed rather inappropriate)..
Is it really likely just 1 letter would tip the balance? I've always assumed that if there were to be a putsch it would be more organised than that. Dozens of letters going in on the same day.
The thing to watch is this: will the way the final deal is put in place leave Westminster bound by that decision? The Times headline today is of Barnier "vowing" that May's successor will not be able to unpick the Brexit deal. He wants "a cast iron guarantee" - suggesting a woeful modern history of the use of that term and Conservative Party leaders.
If looks like May is prepared to concede a shit deal in perpetuity, I suspect that will be the trigger for the letters to go in. And that could happen by November.
This is exactly the problem. The withdrawal agreement is an international treaty. The provisions for ending such a treaty need to be in the treaty itself. If there is no way to end the treaty, it will bind the UK and future Parliaments....
Why ? Countries can, and do abrogate treaties which have no such provisions.
Perhaps you'd like to point me to the relevant part of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties that would allow us to walk away from agreed Brexit terms?
Perhaps you'd like to point to the consistent enforcement of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties that would indicate walking away would be any kind of problem in real life.
Excuse me, it's Remainers who have been screaming how we couldn't possibly walk away from the EU without writing out a cheque.....for our obligations under Treaties.
Just a wild thought. Is it possible for the No Confidence vote to be triggered by accident, say by one MP sending in a letter when one hasn't got around to removing one? Would the chairman of the 1922 committee check with all the letter senders that they still mean it? Is it common knowledge amongst Tory MPs as to the number submitted or does nobody know?
I suspect your answer depends on the mood of the chair of the 1922 committee. If he wants rid or to kill the discussions for a year he could just say I have the necessary letters so we need a vote but I suspect he would be calling every MP and doublechecking if their intentions still hold (I did say remain but that seemed rather inappropriate)..
Is it really likely just 1 letter would tip the balance? I've always assumed that if there were to be a putsch it would be more organised than that. Dozens of letters going in on the same day.
The thing to watch is this: will the way the final deal is put in place leave Westminster bound by that decision? The Times headline today is of Barnier "vowing" that May's successor will not be able to unpick the Brexit deal. He wants "a cast iron guarantee" - suggesting a woeful modern history of the use of that term and Conservative Party leaders.
If looks like May is prepared to concede a shit deal in perpetuity, I suspect that will be the trigger for the letters to go in. And that could happen by November.
This is exactly the problem. The withdrawal agreement is an international treaty. The provisions for ending such a treaty need to be in the treaty itself. If there is no way to end the treaty, it will bind the UK and future Parliaments....
Why ? Countries can, and do abrogate treaties which have no such provisions.
Perhaps you'd like to point me to the relevant part of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties that would allow us to walk away from agreed Brexit terms?
Perhaps you'd like to point to the consistent enforcement of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties that would indicate walking away would be any kind of problem in real life.
Excuse me, it's Remainers who have been screaming how we couldn't possibly walk away from the EU without writing out a cheque.....for our obligations under Treaties.
I suspect your answer depends on the mood of the chair of the 1922 committee. If he wants rid or to kill the discussions for a year he could just say I have the necessary letters so we need a vote but I suspect he would be calling every MP and doublechecking if their intentions still hold (I did say remain but that seemed rather inappropriate)..
Is it really likely just 1 letter would tip the balance? I've always assumed that if there were to be a putsch it would be more organised than that. Dozens of letters going in on the same day.
The thing to watch is this: will the way the final deal is put in place leave Westminster bound by that decision? The Times headline today is of Barnier "vowing" that May's successor will not be able to unpick the Brexit deal. He wants "a cast iron guarantee" - suggesting a woeful modern history of the use of that term and Conservative Party leaders.
If looks like May is prepared to concede a shit deal in perpetuity, I suspect that will be the trigger for the letters to go in. And that could happen by November.
This is exactly the problem. The withdrawal agreement is an international treaty. The provisions for ending such a treaty need to be in the treaty itself. If there is no way to end the treaty, it will bind the UK and future Parliaments....
Why ? Countries can, and do abrogate treaties which have no such provisions.
Perhaps you'd like to point me to the relevant part of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties that would allow us to walk away from agreed Brexit terms?
Perhaps you'd like to point to the consistent enforcement of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties that would indicate walking away would be any kind of problem in real life.
Excuse me, it's Remainers who have been screaming how we couldn't possibly walk away from the EU without writing out a cheque.....for our obligations under Treaties.
And Leavers who have been saying we can!!
No, Leavers have been saying that we have no legal obligation under the treaties. A position backed by Martin Howe QC and the House of Lords. Where is your legal opinion?
There is often a claim for public-sector workers to be treated differently, most commonly on the grounds that the value of the work is not reflected in the salaries paid. The MAC does not think the public sector should be treated differently: it would be better to pay public sector workers salaries that reflect the value of the work.
How much is a social worker "worth"? The problem is most Councils can't afford to pay the Private Sector rate and that is why there are key skills shortages. For example, an experienced property surveyor isn't going to join a Council when he or she can earn so much more in the West End or Docklands.
A lot of public sector jobs have no private sector equivalent so where is the correct salary? Should we not be paying firefighters, police officers and ambulance staff enough to enable them to live near where they work and not have to moonlight?
The correct salary is the minimum amount required to attract and retain good employees. There's no mystery to it.
Indeed.
Although it's not just the salary: it's the whole package of benefits: salary, pension, days holiday, terms and conditions of employment and all sorts of non-financial aspects.
An unusual example of the Thatcherite right having faith in bureaucracy rather than the market. Me, I’m sceptical whether the government is ever going to be a good judge of the changing needs of the market and as today’s report shows, immigration has worked pretty satisfactorily to date.
Which is exactly how every other country in the world operates an immigration programme - based on those who can be net contributors or who have specific skills to fill a shortage.
Every other country apart from the EU27, Australia, New Zealand, Israel and probably a few others.
Australia and NZ have EU-style FoM with each other yes, but that makes up a very small part of the number of immigrants to either country and from outside you need to have certain skills, qualifications or salary offered. I have plenty of acquaintances here in the sandpit who have been turned down by places like Aus and Canada for reasons including a not-specific-enough Masters degree or current job title.
Excluding ill-health, I think the only way that Mrs May will cease to be PM next year is if she loses a leadership confidence motion from Tory MPs. In that unlikely event the Tory Government will also lose a vote of confidence in the House because no Tory successor will be acceptable to a majority of the House.
My scenario is as follows:
1. The modified Chequers deal is voted down by all opposition parties plus ERG.
2. This leaves "No deal".
3. Mrs May knows that is unacceptable but Chequers is dead. She announces "As Parliament has been unable to agree on a way forward, it is with great reluctance that my government will now ask the EU to extend A50 to allow the question to be put to the people in a referendum on the withdrawal terms"
4. There is immediately a vote of no confidence in Mrs May by Tory MPs.
5. If she wins the vote, - and she might because the alternative is a collapse of the Tory Government and a chaotic exit, - then a referendum will be called and she will continue as PM to implement the result.
6. If she loses the vote, and it is clear to the House that no possible Tory successor is going to survive a confidence vote of the House, then a temporary three month "Government of National Unity" under say Dominic Greave will be formed that has the support of a majority. The Queen allows it to form a Government. It extends A50 and calls a referendum after which there is a general election.
MAC has advised an end to low skilled migration, no special access for EU citizens (unless part of a deal) and effectively unlimited high-skilled immigration - which all strikes me as fine (not being an employer of low wage immigrants) - what is missing is Cameron's 'tens of thousands' - I hope the government takes the opportunity of finally burying that.
An unusual example of the Thatcherite right having faith in bureaucracy rather than the market. Me, I’m sceptical whether the government is ever going to be a good judge of the changing needs of the market and as today’s report shows, immigration has worked pretty satisfactorily to date.
Surely MAC is saying 'let the market decide' - with no limit on skilled immigration?
This differs from other countries with quotas for job types.
Although it's not just the salary: it's the whole package of benefits: salary, pension, days holiday, terms and conditions of employment and all sorts of non-financial aspects.
It's not as simple as that I fear. I don't think local Government pay takes local economic conditions into account. I don't believe an Adult Social Worker in a London Borough or in one of the Home Counties earns much different to a similar worker outside London and the SE.
To pick up the original point which Richard N dismissed in his usual glib patronising manner, the fact remains Councils which are chronically short of cash cannot afford to pay the salaries which allow for the recruitment and retention of workers in key specialisms creating shortages and exacerbating workload pressures leading to further issues with recruitment and retention.
Excluding ill-health, I think the only way that Mrs May will cease to be PM next year is if she loses a leadership confidence motion from Tory MPs. In that unlikely event the Tory Government will also lose a vote of confidence in the House because no Tory successor will be acceptable to a majority of the House.
My scenario is as follows:
1. The modified Chequers deal is voted down by all opposition parties plus ERG.
2. This leaves "No deal".
3. Mrs May knows that is unacceptable but Chequers is dead. She announces "As Parliament has been unable to agree on a way forward, it is with great reluctance that my government will now ask the EU to extend A50 to allow the question to be put to the people in a referendum on the withdrawal terms"
4. There is immediately a vote of no confidence in Mrs May by Tory MPs.
5. If she wins the vote, - and she might because the alternative is a collapse of the Tory Government and a chaotic exit, - then a referendum will be called and she will continue as PM to implement the result.
6. If she loses the vote, and it is clear to the House that no possible Tory successor is going to survive a confidence vote of the House, then a temporary three month "Government of National Unity" under say Dominic Greave will be formed that has the support of a majority. The Queen allows it to form a Government. It extends A50 and calls a referendum after which there is a general election.
The big drawback, from the EU's point of view, of agreeing any extension to A 50 is that the UK will then participate in elections to the EU Parliament.
As it happens, I think the government will probably win the Commons vote.
I suspect your answer depends on the mood of the chair of the 1922 committee. If he wants rid or to kill the discussions for a year he could just say I have the necessary letters so we need a vote but I suspect he would be calling every MP and doublechecking if their intentions still hold (I did say remain but that seemed rather inappropriate)..
Is it really likely just 1 letter would tip the balance? I've always assumed that if there were to be a putsch it would be more organised than that. Dozens of letters going in on the same day.
The thing to watch is this: will the way the final deal is put in place leave Westminster bound by that decision? The Times headline today is of Barnier "vowing" that May's successor will not be able to unpick the Brexit deal. He wants "a cast iron guarantee" - suggesting a woeful modern history of the use of that term and Conservative Party leaders.
If looks like May is prepared to concede a shit deal in perpetuity, I suspect that will be the trigger for the letters to go in. And that could happen by November.
This is exactly the problem. The withdrawal agreement is an international treaty. The provisions for ending such a treaty need to be in the treaty itself. If there is no way to end the treaty, it will bind the UK and future Parliaments....
Why ? Countries can, and do abrogate treaties which have no such provisions.
Perhaps you'd like to point me to the relevant part of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties that would allow us to walk away from agreed Brexit terms?
Perhaps you'd like to point to the consistent enforcement of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties that would indicate walking away would be any kind of problem in real life.
Excuse me, it's Remainers who have been screaming how we couldn't possibly walk away from the EU without writing out a cheque.....for our obligations under Treaties.
And Leavers who have been saying we can!!
No, Leavers have been saying that we have no legal obligation under the treaties. A position backed by Martin Howe QC and the House of Lords. Where is your legal opinion?
I haven't asked for one. But you could start here:
An unusual example of the Thatcherite right having faith in bureaucracy rather than the market. Me, I’m sceptical whether the government is ever going to be a good judge of the changing needs of the market and as today’s report shows, immigration has worked pretty satisfactorily to date.
Today's report shows that immigration has worked pretty satisfactorily in economic terms, but I don't think economic calculations were the main driver in voters' minds. Objections to large-scale immigration, especially when concentrated into particular areas, are much more cultural than economic.
MAC has advised an end to low skilled migration, no special access for EU citizens (unless part of a deal) and effectively unlimited high-skilled immigration - which all strikes me as fine (not being an employer of low wage immigrants) - what is missing is Cameron's 'tens of thousands' - I hope the government takes the opportunity of finally burying that.
An unusual example of the Thatcherite right having faith in bureaucracy rather than the market. Me, I’m sceptical whether the government is ever going to be a good judge of the changing needs of the market and as today’s report shows, immigration has worked pretty satisfactorily to date.
Surely MAC is saying 'let the market decide' - with no limit on skilled immigration?
This differs from other countries with quotas for job types.
No, it has advised such an outcome if there is no deal. It has not advised the government not to seek a deal.
There is often a claim for public-sector workers to be treated differently, most commonly on the grounds that the value of the work is not reflected in the salaries paid. The MAC does not think the public sector should be treated differently: it would be better to pay public sector workers salaries that reflect the value of the work.
How much is a social worker "worth"? The problem is most Councils can't afford to pay the Private Sector rate and that is why there are key skills shortages. For example, an experienced property surveyor isn't going to join a Council when he or she can earn so much more in the West End or Docklands.
A lot of public sector jobs have no private sector equivalent so where is the correct salary? Should we not be paying firefighters, police officers and ambulance staff enough to enable them to live near where they work and not have to moonlight?
The correct salary is the minimum amount required to attract and retain good employees. There's no mystery to it.
It's more complicated than that I think.
For a start we have the minimum wage, which implicitly assumes that there are lower salaries for which people would be prepared to work, but which we, as a society, feel are too low.
It's also difficult, particularly in some areas (and often particularly in the public sector), to define what is a good employee. Also the salary you pay also has to be related to the benefit received, which again can be difficult to quantify. I could go on....
Although it's not just the salary: it's the whole package of benefits: salary, pension, days holiday, terms and conditions of employment and all sorts of non-financial aspects.
It's not as simple as that I fear. I don't think local Government pay takes local economic conditions into account. I don't believe an Adult Social Worker in a London Borough or in one of the Home Counties earns much different to a similar worker outside London and the SE.
To pick up the original point which Richard N dismissed in his usual glib patronising manner, the fact remains Councils which are chronically short of cash cannot afford to pay the salaries which allow for the recruitment and retention of workers in key specialisms creating shortages and exacerbating workload pressures leading to further issues with recruitment and retention.
The reason local government pay doesn't take sufficient account of local economic conditions is a hangover from unions insisting on national pay scales, only partially and patchily corrected by London weighting.
And, yes, councils are now very short of cash, and that is going to need to be addressed. I agree with you on that.
Excluding ill-health, I think the only way that Mrs May will cease to be PM next year is if she loses a leadership confidence motion from Tory MPs. In that unlikely event the Tory Government will also lose a vote of confidence in the House because no Tory successor will be acceptable to a majority of the House.
My scenario is as follows:
1. The modified Chequers deal is voted down by all opposition parties plus ERG.
2. This leaves "No deal".
3. Mrs May knows that is unacceptable but Chequers is dead. She announces "As Parliament has been unable to agree on a way forward, it is with great reluctance that my government will now ask the EU to extend A50 to allow the question to be put to the people in a referendum on the withdrawal terms"
4. There is immediately a vote of no confidence in Mrs May by Tory MPs.
5. If she wins the vote, - and she might because the alternative is a collapse of the Tory Government and a chaotic exit, - then a referendum will be called and she will continue as PM to implement the result.
6. If she loses the vote, and it is clear to the House that no possible Tory successor is going to survive a confidence vote of the House, then a temporary three month "Government of National Unity" under say Dominic Greave will be formed that has the support of a majority. The Queen allows it to form a Government. It extends A50 and calls a referendum after which there is a general election.
The big drawback, from the EU's point of view, of agreeing any extension to A 50 is that the UK will then participate in elections to the EU Parliament.
As it happens, I think the government will probably win the Commons vote.
From memory 26 May is the deadline for the euro elections.
I also think the government will win the Commons vote. I'm trying to think of a credible scenario whereby Mrs May steps down next year.
An unusual example of the Thatcherite right having faith in bureaucracy rather than the market. Me, I’m sceptical whether the government is ever going to be a good judge of the changing needs of the market and as today’s report shows, immigration has worked pretty satisfactorily to date.
Today's report shows that immigration has worked pretty satisfactorily in economic terms, but I don't think economic calculations were the main driver in voters' minds. Objections to large-scale immigration, especially when concentrated into particular areas, are much more cultural than economic.
I disagree. It is economic. When the media bleat on and on about a housing shortage, it's not a surprise that people think immigration is too high.
There is often a claim for public-sector workers to be treated differently, most commonly on the grounds that the value of the work is not reflected in the salaries paid. The MAC does not think the public sector should be treated differently: it would be better to pay public sector workers salaries that reflect the value of the work.
How much is a social worker "worth"? The problem is most Councils can't afford to pay the Private Sector rate and that is why there are key skills shortages. For example, an experienced property surveyor isn't going to join a Council when he or she can earn so much more in the West End or Docklands.
A lot of public sector jobs have no private sector equivalent so where is the correct salary? Should we not be paying firefighters, police officers and ambulance staff enough to enable them to live near where they work and not have to moonlight?
The correct salary is the minimum amount required to attract and retain good employees. There's no mystery to it.
It's more complicated than that I think.
For a start we have the minimum wage, which implicitly assumes that there are lower salaries for which people would be prepared to work, but which we, as a society, feel are too low.
It's also difficult, particularly in some areas (and often particularly in the public sector), to define what is a good employee. Also the salary you pay also has to be related to the benefit received, which again can be difficult to quantify. I could go on....
Sure, but I was responding to @stodge asking 'what is a social worker worth?'. It's a daft question; you pay enough to attract and retain good social workers, there's no need to enter into some kind of philosophical discussion of the relative 'worth' of social workers and bartenders.
Which is exactly how every other country in the world operates an immigration programme - based on those who can be net contributors or who have specific skills to fill a shortage.
Every other country apart from the EU27, Australia, New Zealand, Israel and probably a few others.
A preferential FoM arrangement with the EU may be desirable to:
i) facilitate and increase trade with the EU, eg being able to work for 6 months in another EU country may give your company the ability to break into the market there.
ii) make life a bit more interesting - being able to retire abroad or just experience life for a short while in another country is a non-economic but still important benefit.
Yes, exactly. In an ideal world, there shouldn't be preferential treatment for EU citizens over rest-of-world citizens; but, in the real world, if we want a privileged trading relationship with the EU, then naturally we're going to have to give them privileges vis-a-vis the rest of the world in return.
An unusual example of the Thatcherite right having faith in bureaucracy rather than the market. Me, I’m sceptical whether the government is ever going to be a good judge of the changing needs of the market and as today’s report shows, immigration has worked pretty satisfactorily to date.
Today's report shows that immigration has worked pretty satisfactorily in economic terms, but I don't think economic calculations were the main driver in voters' minds. Objections to large-scale immigration, especially when concentrated into particular areas, are much more cultural than economic.
I disagree. It is economic. When the media bleat on and on about a housing shortage, it's not a surprise that people think immigration is too high.
On the specific point of housing, yes I agree. In fact today's report explicitly acknowledges that the impact has been negative, especially in relation to social housing. Same for some aspects of public services.
Does that mean all the rich people will have to start paying fair wages for cleaners, plumbers and nanny's again?
However will they cope!
Possibly - though, of course, it is not just the wealthy whose toilets stop working. It also means taxes and food prices will go up to help pay for the increased wages necessary to attract Brits into the low paid public sector, social care and agricultural jobs currently done mainly by EU migrants. It probably also means a fair few closures in the hospitality industry with the resulting loss of tax that entails for the Treasury. There is a reason why the arch-Brexiteer owner of Wetherspoons is so opposed to restrictions on immigration.
Soon you will be able to bet on the length of pit-stop, how many swear words a driver uses over the radio and how many days at year Lewis Hamilton spends in the UK.
As I said earlier, this is the Golgafrinchan B ark.
I'm really cynical about this, especially if it is to be the first manned BFR mission, yet alone out of LEO. Still, it it does succeed we can expect lots of barf-coloured paintings.
Does that mean all the rich people will have to start paying fair wages for cleaners, plumbers and nanny's again?
However will they cope!
Possibly - though, of course, it is not just the wealthy whose toilets stop working. It also means taxes and food prices will go up to help pay for the increased wages necessary to attract Brits into the low paid public sector, social care and agricultural jobs currently done mainly by EU migrants. It probably also means a fair few closures in the hospitality industry with the resulting loss of tax that entails for the Treasury. There is a reason why the arch-Brexiteer owner of Wetherspoons is so opposed to restrictions on immigration.
which then means managers have to drive up productivity to pay for wages. Boards seem quite capable of funding their own 11% pay rises irresepctive of results.
Yes, exactly. In an ideal world, there shouldn't be preferential treatment for EU citizens over rest-of-world citizens; but, in the real world, if we want a privileged trading relationship with the EU, then naturally we're going to have to give them privileges vis-a-vis the rest of the world in return.
Precisely - on top of which, the immigrants are actually required.
Does that mean all the rich people will have to start paying fair wages for cleaners, plumbers and nanny's again?
However will they cope!
Possibly - though, of course, it is not just the wealthy whose toilets stop working. It also means taxes and food prices will go up to help pay for the increased wages necessary to attract Brits into the low paid public sector, social care and agricultural jobs currently done mainly by EU migrants. It probably also means a fair few closures in the hospitality industry with the resulting loss of tax that entails for the Treasury. There is a reason why the arch-Brexiteer owner of Wetherspoons is so opposed to restrictions on immigration.
which then means managers have to drive up productivity to pay for wages. Boards seem quite capable of funding their own 11% pay rises irresepctive of results.
Inside or outside the EU, the supply of workers will dry up sooner or later, given low birthrates.
Does that mean all the rich people will have to start paying fair wages for cleaners, plumbers and nanny's again?
However will they cope!
Possibly - though, of course, it is not just the wealthy whose toilets stop working. It also means taxes and food prices will go up to help pay for the increased wages necessary to attract Brits into the low paid public sector, social care and agricultural jobs currently done mainly by EU migrants. It probably also means a fair few closures in the hospitality industry with the resulting loss of tax that entails for the Treasury. There is a reason why the arch-Brexiteer owner of Wetherspoons is so opposed to restrictions on immigration.
which then means managers have to drive up productivity to pay for wages. Boards seem quite capable of funding their own 11% pay rises irresepctive of results.
Inside or outside the EU, the supply of workers will dry up sooner or later, given low birthrates.
Inevitably
but then how do we square uncontrolled immigration with the oncoming AI revolution ?
just why do we need lots of people in jobs robots are meant to scoop up ?
Does that mean all the rich people will have to start paying fair wages for cleaners, plumbers and nanny's again?
However will they cope!
Possibly - though, of course, it is not just the wealthy whose toilets stop working. It also means taxes and food prices will go up to help pay for the increased wages necessary to attract Brits into the low paid public sector, social care and agricultural jobs currently done mainly by EU migrants. It probably also means a fair few closures in the hospitality industry with the resulting loss of tax that entails for the Treasury. There is a reason why the arch-Brexiteer owner of Wetherspoons is so opposed to restrictions on immigration.
which then means managers have to drive up productivity to pay for wages. Boards seem quite capable of funding their own 11% pay rises irresepctive of results.
Inside or outside the EU, the supply of workers will dry up sooner or later, given low birthrates.
Inevitably
but then how do we square uncontrolled immigration with the oncoming AI revolution ?
just why do we need lots of people in jobs robots are meant to scoop up ?
Because the oncoming AI 'revolution' is oncoming at glacial speed.
Does that mean all the rich people will have to start paying fair wages for cleaners, plumbers and nanny's again?
However will they cope!
Possibly - though, of course, it is not just the wealthy whose toilets stop working. It also means taxes and food prices will go up to help pay for the increased wages necessary to attract Brits into the low paid public sector, social care and agricultural jobs currently done mainly by EU migrants. It probably also means a fair few closures in the hospitality industry with the resulting loss of tax that entails for the Treasury. There is a reason why the arch-Brexiteer owner of Wetherspoons is so opposed to restrictions on immigration.
which then means managers have to drive up productivity to pay for wages. Boards seem quite capable of funding their own 11% pay rises irresepctive of results.
Inside or outside the EU, the supply of workers will dry up sooner or later, given low birthrates.
Inevitably
but then how do we square uncontrolled immigration with the oncoming AI revolution ?
just why do we need lots of people in jobs robots are meant to scoop up ?
Because the oncoming AI 'revolution' is oncoming at glacial speed.
increased productivity would happily cover the gap until it arrives.
This is exactly the problem. The withdrawal agreement is an international treaty. The provisions for ending such a treaty need to be in the treaty itself. If there is no way to end the treaty, it will bind the UK and future Parliaments....
Why ? Countries can, and do abrogate treaties which have no such provisions.
Perhaps you'd like to point me to the relevant part of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties that would allow us to walk away from agreed Brexit terms?
Perhaps you'd like to point to the consistent enforcement of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties that would indicate walking away would be any kind of problem in real life.
Excuse me, it's Remainers who have been screaming how we couldn't possibly walk away from the EU without writing out a cheque.....for our obligations under Treaties.
And Leavers who have been saying we can!!
No, Leavers have been saying that we have no legal obligation under the treaties. A position backed by Martin Howe QC and the House of Lords. Where is your legal opinion?
I haven't asked for one. But you could start here:
Thank you. However, this opinion is only a critique of the House of Lords opinion, and does not examine the actual legal position. For what is worth, the House of Lords opinion was given on the wrong basis in that they attempted to examine the matter from the point of view of jurisdiction, not primary liability. The Howe paper is legally correct. It explains that, by law, the UK does not fund the EU. In fact, a portion of the UKs resources is ‘owned’ by the EU. By EU treaty, the EU has to fund its operations entirely from these ‘own resources.’ The EU is not allowed to incur liabilities on behalf of member states, nor can it ask the member states to fund them. When the Member States approve the EU budget, they are not agreeing to fund it. They are agreeing how the EUs ‘own resoures’ shall be spent. However, this ‘own resources decision’ is a (distinct) treaty that ends once the A50 period expires. As a result, by law the UK has no legal liability post Brexit.
I have not seen any analysis that effectively refutes this opinion.
The biggest gainers from migration are often the migrants themselves so preferential access to the UK labour market would be of benefit to EU citizens, potentially something of value to offer in the negotiations.
Right. Let’s do a little bit of checking of that. It’s generally assumed that the cut off point between a net contributor and a net beneficiary from the treasury is a household income of between £35k and £38k. So to add an extra £2k ( on average) net contribution would shove that up to £45k at the bottom end.
These figures are utter nonsense and stand up to about thirteen minutes of scrutiny. You are talking bananas if you think those poles and Romanians working in the chicken factory are pulling in £45k earnings. Utter utter bilge.
The biggest gainers from migration are often the migrants themselves so preferential access to the UK labour market would be of benefit to EU citizens, potentially something of value to offer in the negotiations.
Right. Let’s do a little bit of checking of that. It’s generally assumed that the cut off point between a net contributor and a net beneficiary from the treasury is a household income of between £35k and £38k. So to add an extra £2k ( on average) net contribution would shove that up to £45k at the bottom end.
These figures are utter nonsense and stand up to about thirteen minutes of scrutiny. You are talking bananas if you think those poles and Romanians working in the chicken factory are pulling in £45k earnings. Utter utter bilge.
SeanT will be disappointed if they send him to Burning Man to do a review...
What it's like going to Burning Man for the first time
Even the Orgy Dome, which I have envisioned as a den of sweaty carnality so iniquitous it would make the devil blush, has its own set of rules.
"The Orgy Dome is so boring," a campmate complains. "First, you have to hear this long lecture about consent. Then you have to wait in line forever. And then, once you get in, it's mostly just couples laying around. It's the most organized sex you'll ever have in your life."
"It's true," a friend volunteers. "The only good reason to go to the Orgy Dome is if you want to take a nap."
An unusual example of the Thatcherite right having faith in bureaucracy rather than the market. Me, I’m sceptical whether the government is ever going to be a good judge of the changing needs of the market and as today’s report shows, immigration has worked pretty satisfactorily to date.
I’ve often found a correlation between those who see migrants as competeting with them and those that see them as a way of getting something done cheaper, as to how they voted on the referendum.
Some professions such as teaching, nursing, doctors etc (more the latter two) have a large migrant population amongst them, but this has never being at the expense of local doctors and nurses.
Never in the field of public services as a headmaster called in a teacher and asked them if they can do their job for a bit less and work on Saturday as well, because otherwise someone from Eastern Europe can do it. Never before has a local hospital closed, staff made redundant and a new one opened and the *entire* local recruitment done by a polish recruitment firm with job advertisements done in polish.
Never before... if you are competing at the bottom end of the labour market though... even the semi skilled end...
The biggest gainers from migration are often the migrants themselves so preferential access to the UK labour market would be of benefit to EU citizens, potentially something of value to offer in the negotiations.
Right. Let’s do a little bit of checking of that. It’s generally assumed that the cut off point between a net contributor and a net beneficiary from the treasury is a household income of between £35k and £38k. So to add an extra £2k ( on average) net contribution would shove that up to £45k at the bottom end.
These figures are utter nonsense and stand up to about thirteen minutes of scrutiny. You are talking bananas if you think those poles and Romanians working in the chicken factory are pulling in £45k earnings. Utter utter bilge.
You need to factor in age. There are a lot of young, single EU migrants who do not have kids and rarely use the NHS.
Which is exactly how every other country in the world operates an immigration programme - based on those who can be net contributors or who have specific skills to fill a shortage.
Every other country apart from the EU27, Australia, New Zealand, Israel and probably a few others.
Australia doesn't operate an immigration system based on skills?
Yes of course it does. That is why they let me in.
Does that mean all the rich people will have to start paying fair wages for cleaners, plumbers and nanny's again?
However will they cope!
Possibly - though, of course, it is not just the wealthy whose toilets stop working. It also means taxes and food prices will go up to help pay for the increased wages necessary to attract Brits into the low paid public sector, social care and agricultural jobs currently done mainly by EU migrants. It probably also means a fair few closures in the hospitality industry with the resulting loss of tax that entails for the Treasury. There is a reason why the arch-Brexiteer owner of Wetherspoons is so opposed to restrictions on immigration.
which then means managers have to drive up productivity to pay for wages. Boards seem quite capable of funding their own 11% pay rises irresepctive of results.
Inside or outside the EU, the supply of workers will dry up sooner or later, given low birthrates.
Inevitably
but then how do we square uncontrolled immigration with the oncoming AI revolution ?
just why do we need lots of people in jobs robots are meant to scoop up ?
Because the oncoming AI 'revolution' is oncoming at glacial speed.
increased productivity would happily cover the gap until it arrives.
There is often a claim for public-sector workers to be treated differently, most commonly on the grounds that the value of the work is not reflected in the salaries paid. The MAC does not think the public sector should be treated differently: it would be better to pay public sector workers salaries that reflect the value of the work.
How much is a social worker "worth"? The problem is most Councils can't afford to pay the Private Sector rate and that is why there are key skills shortages. For example, an experienced property surveyor isn't going to join a Council when he or she can earn so much more in the West End or Docklands.
A lot of public sector jobs have no private sector equivalent so where is the correct salary? Should we not be paying firefighters, police officers and ambulance staff enough to enable them to live near where they work and not have to moonlight?
The “correct” salary is the one that ensures you have the right number of staff
I don’t know but based on anecdotal reports of staff shortages in the NHS for example that suggests we are paying too little at the moment. @Foxy will have a view no doubt
The biggest gainers from migration are often the migrants themselves so preferential access to the UK labour market would be of benefit to EU citizens, potentially something of value to offer in the negotiations.
Right. Let’s do a little bit of checking of that. It’s generally assumed that the cut off point between a net contributor and a net beneficiary from the treasury is a household income of between £35k and £38k. So to add an extra £2k ( on average) net contribution would shove that up to £45k at the bottom end.
These figures are utter nonsense and stand up to about thirteen minutes of scrutiny. You are talking bananas if you think those poles and Romanians working in the chicken factory are pulling in £45k earnings. Utter utter bilge.
Thanks for the graph. Sometimes something is so far away from what I know and experience. Though that doesn’t make it untrue. This release in tax credit shows something entirely different:
Does that mean all the rich people will have to start paying fair wages for cleaners, plumbers and nanny's again?
However will they cope!
Possibly - though, of course, it is not just the wealthy whose toilets stop working. It also means taxes and food prices will go up to help pay for the increased wages necessary to attract Brits into the low paid public sector, social care and agricultural jobs currently done mainly by EU migrants. It probably also means a fair few closures in the hospitality industry with the resulting loss of tax that entails for the Treasury. There is a reason why the arch-Brexiteer owner of Wetherspoons is so opposed to restrictions on immigration.
which then means managers have to drive up productivity to pay for wages. Boards seem quite capable of funding their own 11% pay rises irresepctive of results.
Inside or outside the EU, the supply of workers will dry up sooner or later, given low birthrates.
Inevitably
but then how do we square uncontrolled immigration with the oncoming AI revolution ?
just why do we need lots of people in jobs robots are meant to scoop up ?
Because the oncoming AI 'revolution' is oncoming at glacial speed.
increased productivity would happily cover the gap until it arrives.
What increased productivity?
precisely
we have a 20+% productivity gap with our competitors and should be putting pressure on business to close it. A tighter labour market is a key factor in doing so.
Great. We’ll have all the Irish-passported tax-efficient private equity barons and not the Eastern European big issue sales reps please.
Oh? You didn’t realise there’s a difference between mean and median?
You don't get the one without the other. That's the point.
Most other countries (ex-EU) focus on skilled immigration - why can't the UK?
It can. But that will need to come with a much less bureaucratic and welcoming system than we have currently - and higher spending on wages and training in the public sector. I am all for that.
If freedom of movement ends, the migration of EEA workers will become harder. Our proposals for changes to the Tier 2 visa system – removing the cap, widening the range of jobs permitted, and reducing bureaucracy - mean that the change would be less for medium-skilled workers than low-skilled workers and less still for high-skilled workers. For non-EEA workers, our Tier 2 proposals would make it easier to hire migrants into high and medium-skilled jobs but make no change for lower- skilled.
Yes - it would mean a lot more bureaucracy for EU citizens than is currently the case. We would be competing with 26 other countries for their talents while making it much more difficult to come. If you are going to face such bureaucracy why go to the UK instead of, say, the US, Australia or Canada?
That’s a very negative view on the attractiveness of our country.
The biggest gainers from migration are often the migrants themselves so preferential access to the UK labour market would be of benefit to EU citizens, potentially something of value to offer in the negotiations.
Right. Let’s do a little bit of checking of that. It’s generally assumed that the cut off point between a net contributor and a net beneficiary from the treasury is a household income of between £35k and £38k. So to add an extra £2k ( on average) net contribution would shove that up to £45k at the bottom end.
These figures are utter nonsense and stand up to about thirteen minutes of scrutiny. You are talking bananas if you think those poles and Romanians working in the chicken factory are pulling in £45k earnings. Utter utter bilge.
Thanks for the graph. Sometimes something is so far away from what I know and experience. Though that doesn’t make it untrue. This release in tax credit shows something entirely different:
“The average tax credits entitlement for families with at least one recently arrived EEA national adult was £5,900.“
“In November 2015 the Government published estimates stating that at March 2013 “between 37 per cent and 45 per cent of the EEA nationals (excluding students) who were resident in the UK having arrived in the preceding 4 years were in households claiming either an in-work or out- of-work benefit or tax credit”.” (Statistics in migrants and benefits House of Commons briefing paper)
It doesn’t add up.., either we have some hugely massive earners skewing the figures or someone has intentionally left our crucial bits of information to give us the data they want us to have.
Does that mean all the rich people will have to start paying fair wages for cleaners, plumbers and nanny's again?
However will they cope!
Possibly - though, of course, it is not just the wealthy whose toilets stop working. It also means taxes and food prices will go up to help pay for the increased wages necessary to attract Brits into the low paid public sector, social care and agricultural jobs currently done mainly by EU migrants. It probably also means a fair few closures in the hospitality industry with the resulting loss of tax that entails for the Treasury. There is a reason why the arch-Brexiteer owner of Wetherspoons is so opposed to restrictions on immigration.
which then means managers have to drive up productivity to pay for wages. Boards seem quite capable of funding their own 11% pay rises irresepctive of results.
Inside or outside the EU, the supply of workers will dry up sooner or later, given low birthrates.
Inevitably
but then how do we square uncontrolled immigration with the oncoming AI revolution ?
just why do we need lots of people in jobs robots are meant to scoop up ?
We have a living example in the cotton towns in Lancashire. Import labour rather than look to productivity improvements (which would have been a chimera anyway given the way that industry was heading). Whole business collapses anyway. Consequences follow.
Does that mean all the rich people will have to start paying fair wages for cleaners, plumbers and nanny's again?
However will they cope!
Possibly - though, of course, it is not just the wealthy whose toilets stop working. It also means taxes and food prices will go up to help pay for the increased wages necessary to attract Brits into the low paid public sector, social care and agricultural jobs currently done mainly by EU migrants. It probably also means a fair few closures in the hospitality industry with the resulting loss of tax that entails for the Treasury. There is a reason why the arch-Brexiteer owner of Wetherspoons is so opposed to restrictions on immigration.
which then means managers have to drive up productivity to pay for wages. Boards seem quite capable of funding their own 11% pay rises irresepctive of results.
Inside or outside the EU, the supply of workers will dry up sooner or later, given low birthrates.
Inevitably
but then how do we square uncontrolled immigration with the oncoming AI revolution ?
just why do we need lots of people in jobs robots are meant to scoop up ?
Because the oncoming AI 'revolution' is oncoming at glacial speed.
increased productivity would happily cover the gap until it arrives.
What increased productivity?
precisely
we have a 20+% productivity gap with our competitors and should be putting pressure on business to close it. A tighter labour market is a key factor in doing so.
You mean a machine in Starbucks that automatically asks you your name and then engraves it onto the cup?
Good point plus of course putting in EU migration controls is simply to build a Maginot Line to repel foreigners.
What would a Topping immigration control look like ?
How it is now( which isn't good for poor area's)open borders to the world - what is it ?
It would look pretty much the same as it does right now. Which "poor area's" did you have in mind?
Before the referendum, the Telegraph was bemoaning the relative decline of population growth in the north of England compared to its glory years when the population increased sixfold.
The biggest gainers from migration are often the migrants themselves so preferential access to the UK labour market would be of benefit to EU citizens, potentially something of value to offer in the negotiations.
Right. Let’s do a little bit of checking of that. It’s generally assumed that the cut off point between a net contributor and a net beneficiary from the treasury is a household income of between £35k and £38k. So to add an extra £2k ( on average) net contribution would shove that up to £45k at the bottom end.
These figures are utter nonsense and stand up to about thirteen minutes of scrutiny. You are talking bananas if you think those poles and Romanians working in the chicken factory are pulling in £45k earnings. Utter utter bilge.
Thanks for the graph. Sometimes something is so far away from what I know and experience. Though that doesn’t make it untrue. This release in tax credit shows something entirely different:
“The average tax credits entitlement for families with at least one recently arrived EEA national adult was £5,900.“
I'm not disagreeing with you. Some migrants are very obviously not a net benefit to the public finances, nor are they ever likely to be. Simultaneously, immigration in aggregate is a net benefit. The latter fact doesn't justify open borders, because of the former fact.
Excluding ill-health, I think the only way that Mrs May will cease to be PM next year is if she loses a leadership confidence motion from Tory MPs. In that unlikely event the Tory Government will also lose a vote of confidence in the House because no Tory successor will be acceptable to a majority of the House.
My scenario is as follows:
1. The modified Chequers deal is voted down by all opposition parties plus ERG.
2. This leaves "No deal".
3. Mrs May knows that is unacceptable but Chequers is dead. She announces "As Parliament has been unable to agree on a way forward, it is with great reluctance that my government will now ask the EU to extend A50 to allow the question to be put to the people in a referendum on the withdrawal terms"
4. There is immediately a vote of no confidence in Mrs May by Tory MPs.
5. If she wins the vote, - and she might because the alternative is a collapse of the Tory Government and a chaotic exit, - then a referendum will be called and she will continue as PM to implement the result.
6. If she loses the vote, and it is clear to the House that no possible Tory successor is going to survive a confidence vote of the House, then a temporary three month "Government of National Unity" under say Dominic Greave will be formed that has the support of a majority. The Queen allows it to form a Government. It extends A50 and calls a referendum after which there is a general election.
There isn't a majority for anything and TM can only kick cans down the road and fudge things for a limited amount of time. Plus nobody wants No Deal, so your scenario is at least plausible.
It doesn’t add up.., either we have some hugely massive earners skewing the figures or someone has intentionally left our crucial bits of information to give us the data they want us to have.
Well, yes. Not just massive earners [finance, law, and even sports], but well-paid professionals in all sorts of fields - IT and academia being two of the bigger ones.
Great. We’ll have all the Irish-passported tax-efficient private equity barons and not the Eastern European big issue sales reps please.
Oh? You didn’t realise there’s a difference between mean and median?
You don't get the one without the other. That's the point.
Not true. It is possible to be selective about who you let in. Virtually every other country in the world manages
And so do we. We let people in from our nearest trading bloc neighbour, but not someone from, say, Zhonghua Renmin GongHeGuo.
We do at the moment
But I was responding to @SouthamObserver claim that it’s not possible to discriminate between Irish fat cats and Romanian street sellers. Of course it is
Does that mean all the rich people will have to start paying fair wages for cleaners, plumbers and nanny's again?
However will they cope!
Possibly - though, of course, it is not just the wealthy whose toilets stop working. It also means taxes and food prices will go up to help pay for the increased wages necessary to attract Brits into the low paid public sector, social care and agricultural jobs currently done mainly by EU migrants. It probably also means a fair few closures in the hospitality industry with the resulting loss of tax that entails for the Treasury. There is a reason why the arch-Brexiteer owner of Wetherspoons is so opposed to restrictions on immigration.
which then means managers have to drive up productivity to pay for wages. Boards seem quite capable of funding their own 11% pay rises irresepctive of results.
Inside or outside the EU, the supply of workers will dry up sooner or later, given low birthrates.
Inevitably
but then how do we square uncontrolled immigration with the oncoming AI revolution ?
just why do we need lots of people in jobs robots are meant to scoop up ?
We have a living example in the cotton towns in Lancashire. Import labour rather than look to productivity improvements (which would have been a chimera anyway given the way that industry was heading). Whole business collapses anyway. Consequences follow.
which is part of the problem of assuming a nation is like a business. A business can shake off excess labour and walk away, a nation cant. We have to honour our commitments to our own people and that means the costs get picked up by us all.
Does that mean all the rich people will have to start paying fair wages for cleaners, plumbers and nanny's again?
However will they cope!
Possibly - though, of course, it is not just the wealthy whose toilets stop working. It also means taxes and food prices will go up to help pay for the increased wages necessary to attract Brits into the low paid public sector, social care and agricultural jobs currently done mainly by EU migrants. It probably also means a fair few closures in the hospitality industry with the resulting loss of tax that entails for the Treasury. There is a reason why the arch-Brexiteer owner of Wetherspoons is so opposed to restrictions on immigration.
which then means managers have to drive up productivity to pay for wages. Boards seem quite capable of funding their own 11% pay rises irresepctive of results.
Inside or outside the EU, the supply of workers will dry up sooner or later, given low birthrates.
Inevitably
but then how do we square uncontrolled immigration with the oncoming AI revolution ?
just why do we need lots of people in jobs robots are meant to scoop up ?
Because the oncoming AI 'revolution' is oncoming at glacial speed.
increased productivity would happily cover the gap until it arrives.
What increased productivity?
precisely
we have a 20+% productivity gap with our competitors and should be putting pressure on business to close it. A tighter labour market is a key factor in doing so.
You mean a machine in Starbucks that automatically asks you your name and then engraves it onto the cup?
Great. We’ll have all the Irish-passported tax-efficient private equity barons and not the Eastern European big issue sales reps please.
Oh? You didn’t realise there’s a difference between mean and median?
You don't get the one without the other. That's the point.
Not true. It is possible to be selective about who you let in. Virtually every other country in the world manages
And so do we. We let people in from our nearest trading bloc neighbour, but not someone from, say, Zhonghua Renmin GongHeGuo.
We do at the moment
But I was responding to @SouthamObserver claim that it’s not possible to discriminate between Irish fat cats and Romanian street sellers. Of course it is
I did not say it was not possible. I said that it would not be advisable to do it if in discriminating against lower-skilled EU migrants we make the UK less attractive for higher skilled ones.
Does that mean all the rich people will have to start paying fair wages for cleaners, plumbers and nanny's again?
However will they cope!
Possibly - though, of course, it is not just the wealthy whose toilets stop working. It also means taxes and food prices will go up to help pay for the increased wages necessary to attract Brits into the low paid public sector, social care and agricultural jobs currently done mainly by EU migrants. It probably also means a fair few closures in the hospitality industry with the resulting loss of tax that entails for the Treasury. There is a reason why the arch-Brexiteer owner of Wetherspoons is so opposed to restrictions on immigration.
which then means managers have to drive up productivity to pay for wages. Boards seem quite capable of funding their own 11% pay rises irresepctive of results.
Inside or outside the EU, the supply of workers will dry up sooner or later, given low birthrates.
Inevitably
but then how do we square uncontrolled immigration with the oncoming AI revolution ?
just why do we need lots of people in jobs robots are meant to scoop up ?
Because the oncoming AI 'revolution' is oncoming at glacial speed.
increased productivity would happily cover the gap until it arrives.
What increased productivity?
precisely
we have a 20+% productivity gap with our competitors and should be putting pressure on business to close it. A tighter labour market is a key factor in doing so.
You mean a machine in Starbucks that automatically asks you your name and then engraves it onto the cup?
why not ? It's probably faster than a barista.
Oh for the days when ordering a cup of coffee didnt take ten minutes !
Emergency New Plans Drafted To Prepare Labour For Sudden Resignation Of Jeremy Corbyn
Emergency plans are being drafted within Labour to severely restrict the powers of deputy leader Tom Watson in the event of a sudden resignation by Jeremy Corbyn, HuffPost can reveal.
A proposed change to the party rulebook circulated to senior figures includes a key new curb on any ‘acting leader’, forcing them to subject all of their actions to the prior approval of the ruling National Executive Committee (NEC).
Great. We’ll have all the Irish-passported tax-efficient private equity barons and not the Eastern European big issue sales reps please.
Oh? You didn’t realise there’s a difference between mean and median?
You don't get the one without the other. That's the point.
Most other countries (ex-EU) focus on skilled immigration - why can't the UK?
It can. But that will need to come with a much less bureaucratic and welcoming system than we have currently - and higher spending on wages and training in the public sector. I am all for that.
If freedom of movement ends, the migration of EEA workers will become harder. Our proposals for changes to the Tier 2 visa system – removing the cap, widening the range of jobs permitted, and reducing bureaucracy - mean that the change would be less for medium-skilled workers than low-skilled workers and less still for high-skilled workers. For non-EEA workers, our Tier 2 proposals would make it easier to hire migrants into high and medium-skilled jobs but make no change for lower- skilled.
Yes - it would mean a lot more bureaucracy for EU citizens than is currently the case. We would be competing with 26 other countries for their talents while making it much more difficult to come. If you are going to face such bureaucracy why go to the UK instead of, say, the US, Australia or Canada?
That’s a very negative view on the attractiveness of our country.
But location might be one factor
Our country has made clear multiple times that it does not like immigrants. We may not think that is the case, but that is the impression we give when we make it so hard for even highly skilled non-EU citizens to settle here and we vote to leave the EU largely because of immigration from EU countries.
The biggest gainers from migration are often the migrants themselves so preferential access to the UK labour market would be of benefit to EU citizens, potentially something of value to offer in the negotiations.
Right. Let’s do a little bit of checking of that. It’s generally assumed that the cut off point between a net contributor and a net beneficiary from the treasury is a household income of between £35k and £38k. So to add an extra £2k ( on average) net contribution would shove that up to £45k at the bottom end.
These figures are utter nonsense and stand up to about thirteen minutes of scrutiny. You are talking bananas if you think those poles and Romanians working in the chicken factory are pulling in £45k earnings. Utter utter bilge.
Thanks for the graph. Sometimes something is so far away from what I know and experience. Though that doesn’t make it untrue. This release in tax credit shows something entirely different:
Does that mean all the rich people will have to start paying fair wages for cleaners, plumbers and nanny's again?
However will they cope!
Possibly - though, of course, it is not just the wealthy whose toilets stop working. It also means taxes and food prices will go up to help pay for the increased wages necessary to attract Brits into the low paid public sector, social care and agricultural jobs currently done mainly by EU migrants. It probably also means a fair few closures in the hospitality industry with the resulting loss of tax that entails for the Treasury. There is a reason why the arch-Brexiteer owner of Wetherspoons is so opposed to restrictions on immigration.
which then means managers have to drive up productivity to pay for wages. Boards seem quite capable of funding their own 11% pay rises irresepctive of results.
Inside or outside the EU, the supply of workers will dry up sooner or later, given low birthrates.
Inevitably
but then how do we square uncontrolled immigration with the oncoming AI revolution ?
just why do we need lots of people in jobs robots are meant to scoop up ?
Because the oncoming AI 'revolution' is oncoming at glacial speed.
increased productivity would happily cover the gap until it arrives.
What increased productivity?
precisely
we have a 20+% productivity gap with our competitors and should be putting pressure on business to close it. A tighter labour market is a key factor in doing so.
You mean a machine in Starbucks that automatically asks you your name and then engraves it onto the cup?
Emergency New Plans Drafted To Prepare Labour For Sudden Resignation Of Jeremy Corbyn
Emergency plans are being drafted within Labour to severely restrict the powers of deputy leader Tom Watson in the event of a sudden resignation by Jeremy Corbyn, HuffPost can reveal.
A proposed change to the party rulebook circulated to senior figures includes a key new curb on any ‘acting leader’, forcing them to subject all of their actions to the prior approval of the ruling National Executive Committee (NEC).
Excluding ill-health, I think the only way that Mrs May will cease to be PM next year is if she loses a leadership confidence motion from Tory MPs. In that unlikely event the Tory Government will also lose a vote of confidence in the House because no Tory successor will be acceptable to a majority of the House.
My scenario is as follows:
1. The modified Chequers deal is voted down by all opposition parties plus ERG.
2. This leaves "No deal".
3. Mrs May knows that is unacceptable but Chequers is dead. She announces "As Parliament has been unable to agree on a way forward, it is with great reluctance that my government will now ask the EU to extend A50 to allow the question to be put to the people in a referendum on the withdrawal terms"
4. There is immediately a vote of no confidence in Mrs May by Tory MPs.
5. If she wins the vote, - and she might because the alternative is a collapse of the Tory Government and a chaotic exit, - then a referendum will be called and she will continue as PM to implement the result.
6. If she loses the vote, and it is clear to the House that no possible Tory successor is going to survive a confidence vote of the House, then a temporary three month "Government of National Unity" under say Dominic Greave will be formed that has the support of a majority. The Queen allows it to form a Government. It extends A50 and calls a referendum after which there is a general election.
Most likely we will stay in the single market and customs union in all but name to get the withdrawal agreement and transition period and that should be enough to get through the House with Chequers used as the starting point for FTA negotiations in the transition period
Does that mean all the rich people will have to start paying fair wages for cleaners, plumbers and nanny's again?
However will they cope!
Possibly - though, of course, it is not just the wealthy whose toilets stop working. It also means taxes and food prices will go up to help pay for the increased wages necessary to attract Brits into the low paid public sector, social care and agricultural jobs currently done mainly by EU migrants. It probably also means a fair few closures in the hospitality industry with the resulting loss of tax that entails for the Treasury. There is a reason why the arch-Brexiteer owner of Wetherspoons is so opposed to restrictions on immigration.
which then means managers have to drive up productivity to pay for wages. Boards seem quite capable of funding their own 11% pay rises irresepctive of results.
Inside or outside the EU, the supply of workers will dry up sooner or later, given low birthrates.
Inevitably
but then how do we square uncontrolled immigration with the oncoming AI revolution ?
just why do we need lots of people in jobs robots are meant to scoop up ?
We have a living example in the cotton towns in Lancashire. Import labour rather than look to productivity improvements (which would have been a chimera anyway given the way that industry was heading). Whole business collapses anyway. Consequences follow.
which is part of the problem of assuming a nation is like a business. A business can shake off excess labour and walk away, a nation cant. We have to honour our commitments to our own people and that means the costs get picked up by us all.
That is a fair point. To make it a reality we will need to accept the need to pay much higher taxes.
I’ve just dipped in and out on here this but it seems to me that the MAC report has highlighted what has been obvious for a long time.we dont really need low skill immigration, at the cost of unemployed low skill U.K. nationals. Conversely, the focus of the Tories on limiting immigration has meant that high skilled immigration has suffered, and we need more of this. Also in general we emigrate to retire, and foreign nationals come here to work. I have never met a foriegn national who has retired to th U.K. I know of many people who have gone ethe other way.
Has anyone met someone who has come to the UK to retire?
So the rich have got richer and the poor poorer from E.U migration.
But the rich pay more taxes.
The poor should be grateful that we pay for their benefits.
That would sound well on the next manifesto.
Absolutely.
No representation unless you’re a net contributor to the Exchequer.
In which case we would be back to a mid nineteenth century franchise of under 50%.
However given we have had universal suffrage including women since 1928 most of those voters are not going to vote to disenfranchise themselves.
Given Labour emerged as the working class party with the working classes disenfranchised our two main parties might return to being the Tories and Liberals and you can find your natural home in the latter
Great. We’ll have all the Irish-passported tax-efficient private equity barons and not the Eastern European big issue sales reps please.
Oh? You didn’t realise there’s a difference between mean and median?
You don't get the one without the other. That's the point.
Most other countries (ex-EU) focus on skilled immigration - why can't the UK?
It can. But that will need to come with a much less bureaucratic and welcoming system than we have currently - and higher spending on wages and training in the public sector. I am all for that.
If freedom of movement ends, the migration of EEA workers will become harder. Our proposals for changes to the Tier 2 visa system – removing the cap, widening the range of jobs permitted, and reducing bureaucracy - mean that the change would be less for medium-skilled workers than low-skilled workers and less still for high-skilled workers. For non-EEA workers, our Tier 2 proposals would make it easier to hire migrants into high and medium-skilled jobs but make no change for lower- skilled.
Yes - it would mean a lot more bureaucracy for EU citizens than is currently the case. We would be competing with 26 other countries for their talents while making it much more difficult to come. If you are going to face such bureaucracy why go to the UK instead of, say, the US, Australia or Canada?
That’s a very negative view on the attractiveness of our country.
But location might be one factor
Our country has made clear multiple times that it does not like immigrants. We may not think that is the case, but that is the impression we give when we make it so hard for even highly skilled non-EU citizens to settle here and we vote to leave the EU largely because of immigration from EU countries.
compared to most EU countries the UK is a welcoming place for immigrants. In this instance environment is a comparative not an absolute.
Does that mean all the rich people will have to start paying fair wages for cleaners, plumbers and nanny's again?
However will they cope!
Possibly - though, of course, it is not just the wealthy whose toilets stop working. It also means taxes and food prices will go up to help pay for the increased wages necessary to attract Brits into the low paid public sector, social care and agricultural jobs currently done mainly by EU migrants. It probably also means a fair few closures in the hospitality industry with the resulting loss of tax that entails for the Treasury. There is a reason why the arch-Brexiteer owner of Wetherspoons is so opposed to restrictions on immigration.
which then means managers have to drive up productivity to pay for wages. Boards seem quite capable of funding their own 11% pay rises irresepctive of results.
Inside or outside the EU, the supply of workers will dry up sooner or later, given low birthrates.
Inevitably
but then how do we square uncontrolled immigration with the oncoming AI revolution ?
just why do we need lots of people in jobs robots are meant to scoop up ?
We have a living example in the cotton towns in Lancashire. Import labour rather than look to productivity improvements (which would have been a chimera anyway given the way that industry was heading). Whole business collapses anyway. Consequences follow.
which is part of the problem of assuming a nation is like a business. A business can shake off excess labour and walk away, a nation cant. We have to honour our commitments to our own people and that means the costs get picked up by us all.
That is a fair point. To make it a reality we will need to accept the need to pay much higher taxes.
well rich blokes like you can afford it :-)
alternatively we could just make it harder for multi nats to avoid paying their fair share
Having largely agreed with Osborne on election night that May was a dead woman walking and having got stung as a result I am inclined to go long on May at the moment. It’s not that she is any good ( she isn’t) but that there is no consensus on who would be better.
I think that she will get a deal not a million miles from Chequers but with quite a lot of important stuff left until later. Brexiteers won’t like it but will recognise that if they don’t take it there is a real risk we won’t leave at all. Remainers won’t like it but will recognise that a no deal exit is possible, even probable if they don’t. Just like with the leadership May is the worst possible solution apart from all the others.
Once she has that the difficult stuff then needs to be negotiated. Are we really going to change Captain during that? I increasingly think not.
Comments
New Zealand does:
https://www.immigration.govt.nz/new-zealand-visas/options/work
It is a points system combined with a list of occupations in demand. There is a family stream like everywhere else.
My scenario is as follows:
1. The modified Chequers deal is voted down by all opposition parties plus ERG.
2. This leaves "No deal".
3. Mrs May knows that is unacceptable but Chequers is dead. She announces "As Parliament has been unable to agree on a way forward, it is with great reluctance that my government will now ask the EU to extend A50 to allow the question to be put to the people in a referendum on the withdrawal terms"
4. There is immediately a vote of no confidence in Mrs May by Tory MPs.
5. If she wins the vote, - and she might because the alternative is a collapse of the Tory Government and a chaotic exit, - then a referendum will be called and she will continue as PM to implement the result.
6. If she loses the vote, and it is clear to the House that no possible Tory successor is going to survive a confidence vote of the House, then a temporary three month "Government of National Unity" under say Dominic Greave will be formed that has the support of a majority. The Queen allows it to form a Government. It extends A50 and calls a referendum after which there is a general election.
MAC has advised an end to low skilled migration, no special access for EU citizens (unless part of a deal) and effectively unlimited high-skilled immigration - which all strikes me as fine (not being an employer of low wage immigrants) - what is missing is Cameron's 'tens of thousands' - I hope the government takes the opportunity of finally burying that. Surely MAC is saying 'let the market decide' - with no limit on skilled immigration?
This differs from other countries with quotas for job types.
To pick up the original point which Richard N dismissed in his usual glib patronising manner, the fact remains Councils which are chronically short of cash cannot afford to pay the salaries which allow for the recruitment and retention of workers in key specialisms creating shortages and exacerbating workload pressures leading to further issues with recruitment and retention.
As it happens, I think the government will probably win the Commons vote.
https://www.cam.ac.uk/sites/www.cam.ac.uk/files/waibel-the-uks-liability-for-financial-obligations-arising-out-of-its-eu-membership.pdf
For a start we have the minimum wage, which implicitly assumes that there are lower salaries for which people would be prepared to work, but which we, as a society, feel are too low.
It's also difficult, particularly in some areas (and often particularly in the public sector), to define what is a good employee. Also the salary you pay also has to be related to the benefit received, which again can be difficult to quantify. I could go on....
And, yes, councils are now very short of cash, and that is going to need to be addressed. I agree with you on that.
https://order-order.com/2018/09/18/lib-dem-meltdown-wetherspoons-apartheid/
I also think the government will win the Commons vote. I'm trying to think of a credible scenario whereby Mrs May steps down next year.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/09/17/elon-musk-show-continues-spacex-plans-introduce-worlds-first-private-passenger-fly-around-moon/
i) facilitate and increase trade with the EU, eg being able to work for 6 months in another EU country may give your company the ability to break into the market there.
ii) make life a bit more interesting - being able to retire abroad or just experience life for a short while in another country is a non-economic but still important benefit.
However will they cope!
https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/45558975
Soon you will be able to bet on the length of pit-stop, how many swear words a driver uses over the radio and how many days at year Lewis Hamilton spends in the UK.
I'm really cynical about this, especially if it is to be the first manned BFR mission, yet alone out of LEO. Still, it it does succeed we can expect lots of barf-coloured paintings.
Boards seem quite capable of funding their own 11% pay rises irresepctive of results.
but then how do we square uncontrolled immigration with the oncoming AI revolution ?
just why do we need lots of people in jobs robots are meant to scoop up ?
These figures are utter nonsense and stand up to about thirteen minutes of scrutiny. You are talking bananas if you think those poles and Romanians working in the chicken factory are pulling in £45k earnings. Utter utter bilge.
How it is now( which isn't good for poor area's)open borders to the world - what is it ?
https://twitter.com/MigObs/status/1041981892743053313
What it's like going to Burning Man for the first time
Even the Orgy Dome, which I have envisioned as a den of sweaty carnality so iniquitous it would make the devil blush, has its own set of rules.
"The Orgy Dome is so boring," a campmate complains. "First, you have to hear this long lecture about consent. Then you have to wait in line forever. And then, once you get in, it's mostly just couples laying around. It's the most organized sex you'll ever have in your life."
"It's true," a friend volunteers. "The only good reason to go to the Orgy Dome is if you want to take a nap."
http://uk.businessinsider.com/what-its-like-going-to-burning-man-for-first-time-photos-2018-9?r=US&IR=T
I’ve often found a correlation between those who see migrants as competeting with them and those that see them as a way of getting something done cheaper, as to how they voted on the referendum.
Some professions such as teaching, nursing, doctors etc (more the latter two) have a large migrant population amongst them, but this has never being at the expense of local doctors and nurses.
Never in the field of public services as a headmaster called in a teacher and asked them if they can do their job for a bit less and work on Saturday as well, because otherwise someone from Eastern Europe can do it. Never before has a local hospital closed, staff made redundant and a new one opened and the *entire* local recruitment done by a polish recruitment firm with job advertisements done in polish.
Never before... if you are competing at the bottom end of the labour market though... even the semi skilled end...
I don’t know but based on anecdotal reports of staff shortages in the NHS for example that suggests we are paying too little at the moment. @Foxy will have a view no doubt
This release in tax credit shows something entirely different:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/502183/HM_REVENUE_AND_CUSTOMS_-_Ad_Hoc_Stats_Release_-_EEA_Nationals_TC_Entitlement.pdf
“The average tax credits entitlement for families with at least one recently arrived EEA national adult was £5,900.“
we have a 20+% productivity gap with our competitors and should be putting pressure on business to close it. A tighter labour market is a key factor in doing so.
But location might be one factor
It doesn’t add up.., either we have some hugely massive earners skewing the figures or someone has intentionally left our crucial bits of information to give us the data they want us to have.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11211100/North-of-England-declines-to-population-share-last-seen-in-1820s.html
The total number of people in the area has grown from 12.3 million to 15.1 million since 1911. By contrast it increased sixfold between 1801 and 1911.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/18/londoners-arrogant-insular-uk-residents-survey
But I was responding to @SouthamObserver claim that it’s not possible to discriminate between Irish fat cats and Romanian street sellers. Of course it is
May I ask what part of London you live ?
And you?
Oh for the days when ordering a cup of coffee didnt take ten minutes !
Emergency plans are being drafted within Labour to severely restrict the powers of deputy leader Tom Watson in the event of a sudden resignation by Jeremy Corbyn, HuffPost can reveal.
A proposed change to the party rulebook circulated to senior figures includes a key new curb on any ‘acting leader’, forcing them to subject all of their actions to the prior approval of the ruling National Executive Committee (NEC).
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/emergency-new-plans-drafted-to-prepare-labour-for-sudden-resignation-by-jeremy-corbyn-curbs-on-acting-leader-tom-watson_uk_5ba0b458e4b046313fbf0c45
(Note to expat Leavers: Wyboston is a part of the UK, lesser known it is true, which voted to Leave the EU.)
Has anyone met someone who has come to the UK to retire?
However given we have had universal suffrage including women since 1928 most of those voters are not going to vote to disenfranchise themselves.
Given Labour emerged as the working class party with the working classes disenfranchised our two main parties might return to being the Tories and Liberals and you can find your natural home in the latter
It's actually unwatchable at the moment...
alternatively we could just make it harder for multi nats to avoid paying their fair share
I think that she will get a deal not a million miles from Chequers but with quite a lot of important stuff left until later. Brexiteers won’t like it but will recognise that if they don’t take it there is a real risk we won’t leave at all. Remainers won’t like it but will recognise that a no deal exit is possible, even probable if they don’t. Just like with the leadership May is the worst possible solution apart from all the others.
Once she has that the difficult stuff then needs to be negotiated. Are we really going to change Captain during that? I increasingly think not.