We need people who want to come here, make money, set up their own businesses etc, not come here and claim Income Support, or indeed claim Child Benefit for children who live abroad.
The idea that a government-run bureaucracy could make any kind of intelligent decision about who will and won't provide a positive benefit to the country in question doesn't survive contact with any actual immigration system.
I don't believe any of these polls matter until the extent of Romanian and Bulgarian immigration is apparent.
Rioting/civil disturbance seems a distinct possibility in some areas given what has already been reported. The Tories will get the blame.
There will be major problems in years to come if immigration is curtailed simply because the population is getting older and the burden of support falls on a dwindling percentage of those in work.
Fools who go on about the immigrant "problem" never mention demographic change.
Our future prosperity depends on more immigration
Mike the problem is not immigration per se.
It's the rate of immigration, the type (i.e. un/semi-skilled), the failings in the education and the welfare system and the multi-culturalism approach.
A manageable level of immigration, where they integrate into the host community is a great thing. The current situation is one where the education system has failed to prepare our young people to compete effectively in a cutthroat world and the welfare system provides them with a very comfortable long-term place to rest. The result is that we are importing people to do jobs that our own kids could and should do while abandoning them to the personal psychological decay of long-term joblessness.
Clearly the most critical part is to fix education and welfare. But uncontrolled immigration does not help matters at all. (Personally, I would look at right to claim welfare benefits, at the right to bring family and dependents, strengthening the points system, etc.)
Backed (with a tiny, tiny stake) Rosberg to win in 2014 at 24 (Betfair). Those odds have gone, but you can get some on at 23 and a little less.
That his odds are longer than Ricciardo is slightly bonkers. Yes, Ricciardo will be in a Red Bull, and yes, Red Bull gave dominated recently. But the rule changes and the fact Ricciardo has to beat Vettel to win the title means his odds should be longer.
Rosberg has essentially matched Hamilton in 2013, and has a slightly better points-per-finished ratio, but Hamilton's odds are 6.4. Rosberg is not four times less likely to win the title, in my view.
Of course, this is a bit of a shot in the dark. You may prefer Magnussen at 32 (34 with Ladbrokes, having previously been 51, when I put on a small stake) if you're going for a wild shot.
I suspect Ferrari will fail to develop their car and we could see some furious fireworks when Alonso and Raikkonen go head to head. My guess is that 2014 will be mostly a Mercedes Vs Red Bull contest.
I'd advise against putting on significant stakes at this stage, as it's all guesswork, and we can't know how reliable the various teams are until the season kicks off. It could be that reliability actually matters more than pace.
We need people who want to come here, make money, set up their own businesses etc, not come here and claim Income Support, or indeed claim Child Benefit for children who live abroad.
The idea that a government-run bureaucracy could make any kind of intelligent decision about who will and won't provide a positive benefit to the country in question doesn't survive contact with any actual immigration system.
The way it has traditionally been done, is that recent immigrants are not entitled to state benefits so they have to live on their wits. We unfortunately seem to be unable to do that.
But I would reject your argument. A Romanian doctor would seem a better bet than a single mother with 3 children, or a Somalian jihadi. Yes the doctor might end up having a nervous breakdown in a few years and spending the rest of their life on ESA, and the lone parent might end up running a profitable business from home... but on the balance of probabilities...
I bet I can't go to Germany and claim means tested benifits, but you can come to the UK and do that as long as you can pass the Habitual Residency Test, ie show you are planning to live here.
"I continue to believe, as I have said to you before, that the release of Nelson Mandela would have more impact than almost any single action you could undertake."
I don't believe any of these polls matter until the extent of Romanian and Bulgarian immigration is apparent.
Rioting/civil disturbance seems a distinct possibility in some areas given what has already been reported. The Tories will get the blame.
There will be major problems in years to come if immigration is curtailed simply because the population is getting older and the burden of support falls on a dwindling percentage of those in work.
Fools who go on about the immigrant "problem" never mention demographic change.
Our future prosperity depends on more immigration
Mike the problem is not immigration per se.
It's the rate of immigration, the type (i.e. un/semi-skilled), the failings in the education and the welfare system and the multi-culturalism approach.
A manageable level of immigration, where they integrate into the host community is a great thing. The current situation is one where the education system has failed to prepare our young people to compete effectively in a cutthroat world and the welfare system provides them with a very comfortable long-term place to rest. The result is that we are importing people to do jobs that our own kids could and should do while abandoning them to the personal psychological decay of long-term joblessness.
Clearly the most critical part is to fix education and welfare. But uncontrolled immigration does not help matters at all. (Personally, I would look at right to claim welfare benefits, at the right to bring family and dependents, strengthening the points system, etc.)
Off topic, but that 11% MP payrise is pure madness at the present time. I appreciate that other benefits might change, but now is not the time.
There is a discussion to be had on what renumeration, pension, expenses and booting-out-of-a-job payoff they get, but, IPSA have lost the plot if they think the general public are going to take the likes of Dorries, Abbott, other no mark back benchers, and the PPE elite on both front benches raking in at least another seven and a half grand lying down.
I've had 2% in the last 5 years. IPSA will do morale for striking public sector workers a power of good, if they carry this out.
I know the convention is that the parties don't whip votes on pay and rations.
But I think that Cameron should have a 3 line whip against this proposal. It will piss off his backbenchers, and I know that is a risk, but equally I suspect those that will be really upset are the Cameron-haters anyway.
I suspect that it would look very good to the public.
(as an aside, WTF haven't they replaced the pension scheme with a direct contribution scheme. It's outrageous that they still have a final salary approach. Don't care how much they have to pay out of wages. The state should not be underwriting a comfortable life for MPs for the rest of their lives).
The problem with this is that any rise of MP's salaries will be unpopular.
The expenses scandal arose because in the 80's Thatcher and her Minister, Moore, ducked a similar issue and allowed the Expenses backdoor route. 20 years later it came to bite everyone big time.
Basically, what we are saying is that unless someone is very rich or is prepared to earn far less than some of them are capable of earning, they should not become an MP.
What did an MP earn in 1980 vs a GP, say ? What do they earn now ?
Comparatives are not the right ways forward: they have been key driver of executive salaries.
Pay restraint in the 80s was not the issue - it was (a) the backdoor and (b) abuse by this generation of MPs of the backdoor.
I would go for a 2 year pay freeze and then, in perpetuity, tie it to the increase in average wages. If I could get away with it, I'd say zero rise if the deficit is >2% of GDP because they are failing in their job to keep the executive in check
Off topic, but that 11% MP payrise is pure madness at the present time. I appreciate that other benefits might change, but now is not the time.
There is a discussion to be had on what renumeration, pension, expenses and booting-out-of-a-job payoff they get, but, IPSA have lost the plot if they think the general public are going to take the likes of Dorries, Abbott, other no mark back benchers, and the PPE elite on both front benches raking in at least another seven and a half grand lying down.
I've had 2% in the last 5 years. IPSA will do morale for striking public sector workers a power of good, if they carry this out.
I know the convention is that the parties don't whip votes on pay and rations.
But I think that Cameron should have a 3 line whip against this proposal. It will piss off his backbenchers, and I know that is a risk, but equally I suspect those that will be really upset are the Cameron-haters anyway.
I suspect that it would look very good to the public.
(as an aside, WTF haven't they replaced the pension scheme with a direct contribution scheme. It's outrageous that they still have a final salary approach. Don't care how much they have to pay out of wages. The state should not be underwriting a comfortable life for MPs for the rest of their lives).
The problem with this is that any rise of MP's salaries will be unpopular.
The expenses scandal arose because in the 80's Thatcher and her Minister, Moore, ducked a similar issue and allowed the Expenses backdoor route. 20 years later it came to bite everyone big time.
Basically, what we are saying is that unless someone is very rich or is prepared to earn far less than some of them are capable of earning, they should not become an MP.
What did an MP earn in 1980 vs a GP, say ? What do they earn now ?
I'm a firm believer that MPs should get paid more, and have expenses sorted out in a more realistic way. But I'm in a minority over that, and it's not politically feasible - the battle has been lost. Hence the unedifying sight of MPs talking on the radio today about giving the increase to charity.
Instead, I think I'd go for something someone proposed on here a while back - link MP pay increase to the NMW. If the NMW increases, so does MP pay.
Apologists defending the Apartheid collaborator Thatcher on the grounds that she supported Bothas attempts to release Mandela as a tactic in 1985 as Mandela stood firm.
I always wondered why we had to stand up against one unpleasant regime, where there were others that were equally unpleasant and also offered an existential threat to the United Kingdom, ie Communism. It is of course great that apartheid is no more; I hope that SA can progress and not sink into the sort of tyranny and kleptocracy that characterises so many African countries. Just as it is great that central and eastern European countries have been able to rejoin the mainstream of European civilisation.
Wouldn't the right way to do it be just to ignore the outlier (which I think most people thought the 12% lead was, although it didn't stop the lefties having their fun, in the same way a few of the more excitable Tories talked about "crossover").
i.e. we should look at this as a narrowing from the poll before last one? Does anyone have those number. Off the top of my head I would see this as a narrowing from a 7/8 Labour lead to a 5 point lead. Too early to say whether it is noise or real. In any event it is a solid single/double rather than a home run (but that is what, I suspect, they were aiming for)
My political rather than statistical judgment is to take them both as outliers reflecting a rare occasion when people noticed some political stuff - unfavourable one day on pension age, favourable next day on the statement. I wouldn't take either of them to be settled and think we'll be back to 7ish next week, but we'll soon see.
I know the convention is that the parties don't whip votes on pay and rations.
But I think that Cameron should have a 3 line whip against this proposal. It will piss off his backbenchers, and I know that is a risk, but equally I suspect those that will be really upset are the Cameron-haters anyway.
I suspect that it would look very good to the public.
(as an aside, WTF haven't they replaced the pension scheme with a direct contribution scheme. It's outrageous that they still have a final salary approach. Don't care how much they have to pay out of wages. The state should not be underwriting a comfortable life for MPs for the rest of their lives).
There won't be a vote at all unless someone puts down a motion expressing an opinion, it'll just happen. IPSA was specifically delegated the job of making a final decision, excluding the right of MPs to decide on their own salaries. Cameron could in theory introduce emergency amending legislation removing this power from IPSA. He quite obviously has no intention of doing so, for reasons of party management - the view among backbenchers that the millionaire frontbench has no business telling them to overrule IPSA is very strong and a 3-line whip would be widely flouted.
The change in pensions has been repeatedly announced and will also happen, with effect from May 2015. That's in the IPSA package too and is one of the balancing measures that they see for the rise in base salary. Again, MPs won't get to vote on it.
Apologists defending the Apartheid collaborator Thatcher on the grounds that she supported Bothas attempts to release Mandela as a tactic in 1985 as Mandela stood firm.
Nothing very interesting.
Perhaps the Booker/Hemming fans can fill their Sunday by reading this demolition of them
Seeing as Mandela and Thatcher became close friends , your defamation of Thatcher is an insult to the memory of Mandela. There's an ancient taboo against speaking ill of the recently dead and you've broken it.
You smell that son, that is the smell of defeat. I love the smell of smearing in the morning.
Apologists for Apartheid, will read apologists for Pinochet, apologists for nuclear power, apologists for England selectors, apologists for David Moyes...
Off topic, but that 11% MP payrise is pure madness at the present time. I appreciate that other benefits might change, but now is not the time.
There is a discussion to be had on what renumeration, pension, expenses and booting-out-of-a-job payoff they get, but, IPSA have lost the plot if they think the general public are going to take the likes of Dorries, Abbott, other no mark back benchers, and the PPE elite on both front benches raking in at least another seven and a half grand lying down.
I've had 2% in the last 5 years. IPSA will do morale for striking public sector workers a power of good, if they carry this out.
I know the convention is that the parties don't whip votes on pay and rations.
But I think that Cameron should have a 3 line whip against this proposal. It will piss off his backbenchers, and I know that is a risk, but equally I suspect those that will be really upset are the Cameron-haters anyway.
I suspect that it would look very good to the public.
(as an aside, WTF haven't they replaced the pension scheme with a direct contribution scheme. It's outrageous that they still have a final salary approach. Don't care how much they have to pay out of wages. The state should not be underwriting a comfortable life for MPs for the rest of their lives).
The problem with this is that any rise of MP's salaries will be unpopular.
The expenses scandal arose because in the 80's Thatcher and her Minister, Moore, ducked a similar issue and allowed the Expenses backdoor route. 20 years later it came to bite everyone big time.
Basically, what we are saying is that unless someone is very rich or is prepared to earn far less than some of them are capable of earning, they should not become an MP.
What did an MP earn in 1980 vs a GP, say ? What do they earn now ?
Comparatives are not the right ways forward: they have been key driver of executive salaries.
Pay restraint in the 80s was not the issue - it was (a) the backdoor and (b) abuse by this generation of MPs of the backdoor.
I would go for a 2 year pay freeze and then, in perpetuity, tie it to the increase in average wages. If I could get away with it, I'd say zero rise if the deficit is >2% of GDP because they are failing in their job to keep the executive in check
On form today , Charles. It is clearly crazy to consider such a large increase given what is happening in the real world. Unfortunately the MP's will be knocking each other over to get it.
Apologists defending the Apartheid collaborator Thatcher on the grounds that she supported Bothas attempts to release Mandela as a tactic in 1985 as Mandela stood firm.
Nothing very interesting.
Perhaps the Booker/Hemming fans can fill their Sunday by reading this demolition of them
@JosaisJessop - tying the MP raise to the NMW creates an incentive to increase the NMW which may or may not be the right thing to do. It should be tied to something outwith their control.
@NickPalmer: I don't care whether pensions have been repeatedly announced or not. It is simply wrong. And yes, restraint would play badly with Cameron's backbenchers, but it would play well with the public. And IPSA generally is a bad thing: if parliament is to have the moral authoirty to govern us, then they need to have the strength of mind to govern themselves
Off topic, but that 11% MP payrise is pure madness at the present time. I appreciate that other benefits might change, but now is not the time.
There is a discussion to be had on what renumeration, pension, expenses and booting-out-of-a-job payoff they get, but, IPSA have lost the plot if they think the general public are going to take the likes of Dorries, Abbott, other no mark back benchers, and the PPE elite on both front benches raking in at least another seven and a half grand lying down.
I've had 2% in the last 5 years. IPSA will do morale for striking public sector workers a power of good, if they carry this out.
I know the convention is that the parties don't whip votes on pay and rations.
But I think that Cameron should have a 3 line whip against this proposal. It will piss off his backbenchers, and I know that is a risk, but equally I suspect those that will be really upset are the Cameron-haters anyway.
I suspect that it would look very good to the public.
(as an aside, WTF haven't they replaced the pension scheme with a direct contribution scheme. It's outrageous that they still have a final salary approach. Don't care how much they have to pay out of wages. The state should not be underwriting a comfortable life for MPs for the rest of their lives).
The problem with this is that any rise of MP's salaries will be unpopular.
The expenses scandal arose because in the 80's Thatcher and her Minister, Moore, ducked a similar issue and allowed the Expenses backdoor route. 20 years later it came to bite everyone big time.
Basically, what we are saying is that unless someone is very rich or is prepared to earn far less than some of them are capable of earning, they should not become an MP.
What did an MP earn in 1980 vs a GP, say ? What do they earn now ?
Comparatives are not the right ways forward: they have been key driver of executive salaries.
Pay restraint in the 80s was not the issue - it was (a) the backdoor and (b) abuse by this generation of MPs of the backdoor.
I would go for a 2 year pay freeze and then, in perpetuity, tie it to the increase in average wages. If I could get away with it, I'd say zero rise if the deficit is >2% of GDP because they are failing in their job to keep the executive in check
On form today , Charles. It is clearly crazy to consider such a large increase given what is happening in the real world. Unfortunately the MP's will be knocking each other over to get it.
SNP members are notoriously the most extravagent of all MPs in their lavish expenses claims. I can't imagine your laddies turning their snouts up from the trough.
I don't believe any of these polls matter until the extent of Romanian and Bulgarian immigration is apparent.
Rioting/civil disturbance seems a distinct possibility in some areas given what has already been reported. The Tories will get the blame.
There will be major problems in years to come if immigration is curtailed simply because the population is getting older and the burden of support falls on a dwindling percentage of those in work.
Fools who go on about the immigrant "problem" never mention demographic change.
Our future prosperity depends on more immigration
Not on poor unskilled immigrants it bloody doesn't.
This poll is a reflection of what I felt was a good Autumn Statement by Osborne. Cut UKIP down to 5% and add those votes to the Tories and you get Tories 40%, Labour 39% without one voter more switching from Labour to Tory, Which means Cameron probably leads another Coalition!
Apologists defending the Apartheid collaborator Thatcher on the grounds that she supported Bothas attempts to release Mandela as a tactic in 1985 as Mandela stood firm.
Nothing very interesting.
Perhaps the Booker/Hemming fans can fill their Sunday by reading this demolition of them
4 separate trolling attempts in one post? That must me a new record!
tim's workrate has always been outstanding but perhaps he's now trying to improve his efficiency.
And also gives us the added comedy of a member of the 'make the white vote angry' party who chooses to live in a 98% white area frothing about immigration and segregation.
. And IPSA generally is a bad thing: if parliament is to have the moral authoirty to govern us, then they need to have the strength of mind to govern themselves
Well said, MPs are elected and paid to make the difficult decisions and be democratically accountable for it. If they cant justify to the public why they deserve a pay rise then they should think about why that is rather than getting their mates to do it behind closed doors.
Cut UKIP down to 5% and add those votes to the Tories and you get Tories 40%, Labour 39% without one voter more switching from Labour to Tory, Which means Cameron probably leads another Coalition!
You can't do that, not only will they probably not squeeze that small, if they do squeeze that small then you're squeezing a bunch of Labour and LibDem sympathizers as well, who cancel out some of the voters you squeezed back Tory.
It's correct to reallocate some of the kippers back to Con, but not that many.
A Romanian doctor would seem a better bet than a single mother with 3 children, or a Somalian jihadi.
Filtered through an actual government bureaucracy this ends up getting translated into a box on an immigration form saying "Have you or do you intend to participate in jihad or other terrorist activities?", while the doctor can't get in because the outsourced claims processor doesn't recognize the translation of their officially notarized medical qualification.
I don't believe any of these polls matter until the extent of Romanian and Bulgarian immigration is apparent.
Rioting/civil disturbance seems a distinct possibility in some areas given what has already been reported. The Tories will get the blame.
There will be major problems in years to come if immigration is curtailed simply because the population is getting older and the burden of support falls on a dwindling percentage of those in work.
Fools who go on about the immigrant "problem" never mention demographic change.
Our future prosperity depends on more immigration
Not on poor unskilled immigrants it bloody doesn't.
You can't make any statements about curbing immigration without dealing with the demographic point. We need an influx of economically active adults to deal with the ageing population.
This poll is a reflection of what I felt was a good Autumn Statement by Osborne. Cut UKIP down to 5% and add those votes to the Tories and you get Tories 40%, Labour 39% without one voter more switching from Labour to Tory, Which means Cameron probably leads another Coalition!
The current Toxic Tories cannot achieve 40%. 38% is probably their maximum ceiling, if they had been in opposition. In government, probably 35-36%.
I also think that Solzhenitsyn was as great, if not greater than Mandela. The reason his passing was a non-event in Britain is because he became religious and the elite left in Britain and the BBC hate that sort of thing.
I don't believe any of these polls matter until the extent of Romanian and Bulgarian immigration is apparent.
Rioting/civil disturbance seems a distinct possibility in some areas given what has already been reported. The Tories will get the blame.
There will be major problems in years to come if immigration is curtailed simply because the population is getting older and the burden of support falls on a dwindling percentage of those in work.
Fools who go on about the immigrant "problem" never mention demographic change.
Our future prosperity depends on more immigration
Not on poor unskilled immigrants it bloody doesn't.
You can't make any statements about curbing immigration without dealing with the demographic point. We need an influx of economically active adults to deal with the ageing population.
As I posted below, the French are having some success dealing with this problem. In addition one can quite easily demonstrate how technology reduces the number of jobs that require manual labour.
Does anyone really think that in 50 years time we won't have humanoid robots and very few human Doctors and nurses?
I don't believe any of these polls matter until the extent of Romanian and Bulgarian immigration is apparent.
Rioting/civil disturbance seems a distinct possibility in some areas given what has already been reported. The Tories will get the blame.
There will be major problems in years to come if immigration is curtailed simply because the population is getting older and the burden of support falls on a dwindling percentage of those in work.
Fools who go on about the immigrant "problem" never mention demographic change.
Our future prosperity depends on more immigration
Not on poor unskilled immigrants it bloody doesn't.
You can't make any statements about curbing immigration without dealing with the demographic point. We need an influx of economically active adults to deal with the ageing population.
.......and pay taxes. Even the SNP recognises that. Even this government below the radar recognises that. A member of my staff applied to leave in the UK permanently in the usual way and , two months later, without any fuss, got it with no restriction on his work anywhere in the UK.
EdmundinTokyo But clearly a plurality of non-hardcore Kippers (the 5%) are Tory and most of the movement in this poll was from kipper to Tory
A plurality may be, but that doesn't get you that big a shift. Once you've taken out the soft Tories who go backwards and forwards, as this poll does, squeezing 6% off the remaining 11% isn't going to result in +6 net for Con. It'll be more like 3% Con, 1% Lab, 2% Other or don't vote, for a net Con gain of +2%.
I don't believe any of these polls matter until the extent of Romanian and Bulgarian immigration is apparent.
Rioting/civil disturbance seems a distinct possibility in some areas given what has already been reported. The Tories will get the blame.
There will be major problems in years to come if immigration is curtailed simply because the population is getting older and the burden of support falls on a dwindling percentage of those in work.
Fools who go on about the immigrant "problem" never mention demographic change.
Our future prosperity depends on more immigration
Not on poor unskilled immigrants it bloody doesn't.
You can't make any statements about curbing immigration without dealing with the demographic point. We need an influx of economically active adults to deal with the ageing population.
As I posted below, the French are having some success dealing with this problem. In addition one can quite easily demonstrate how technology reduces the number of jobs that require manual labour.
Does anyone really think that in 50 years time we won't have humanoid robots and very few human Doctors and nurses?
This all points to the fact that the Earth is overpopulated with humans. There will have to be a cull, natural or by other means. But who would have the will to prevent copulation by force?
@JosaisJessop - tying the MP raise to the NMW creates an incentive to increase the NMW which may or may not be the right thing to do. It should be tied to something outwith their control.
@NickPalmer: I don't care whether pensions have been repeatedly announced or not. It is simply wrong. And yes, restraint would play badly with Cameron's backbenchers, but it would play well with the public. And IPSA generally is a bad thing: if parliament is to have the moral authoirty to govern us, then they need to have the strength of mind to govern themselves
If they exercised their true feelings they'd give themselves a larger rise and wouldn't change the pension scheme! That's what happened in 1996 when they were last facing a large potential turnover. I applied to stand when the pay was something like £34,000, and was agreeably surprised to find it had become £43000 or something by the time I got in. Delegating it to IPSA makes sense, because it removes both the temptation of MPs to be greedy and for front benches to be parsimonious to score points with the public. Moreover, there are very few examples nowadays of people deciding their own pay rises. And aren't you simultaneously arguing that they should "govern themselves" and be "tied to something outwith their control"?
Anyway, what is clearly unacceptable is to say that IPSA gets to decide, except when they decide an increase, in which case MPs should stop it. Either MPs should have responsibility and the right to increase their salaries if they're prepared to face the public over it, or they shouldn't have the right to decide at all. (I don't think they should, because with FPTP the majority in safe seats could vote themselves much larger increases and still get away with it.)
Like I said, both pay rise and pension cut will happen, and Cameron won't stop it. We can bet on it if you like!
Does anyone really think that in 50 years time we won't have humanoid robots and very few human Doctors and nurses?
I'm not sure whether the robots are still going to want us around at that point, but if they do we'll want more humans to lessen the per-person burden of whatever it is they require us to do for them.
I also think that Solzhenitsyn was as great, if not greater than Mandela. The reason his passing was a non-event in Britain is because he became religious and the elite left in Britain and the BBC hate that sort of thing.
Does anyone really think that in 50 years time we won't have humanoid robots and very few human Doctors and nurses?
This all points to the fact that the Earth is overpopulated with humans. There will have to be a cull, natural or by other means. But who would have the will to prevent copulation by force?
I don't think I accept the premise that the Earth has too many humans, but if it's right, the answer to your question is right there in Swiss_Bob's post...
I also think that Solzhenitsyn was as great, if not greater than Mandela. The reason his passing was a non-event in Britain is because he became religious and the elite left in Britain and the BBC hate that sort of thing.
Peter Hitchens. Oh, Yes ! Yesterdays' Dan Hodges.
Is he still alive ?
Surbiton, you're not worth replying to. So I won't.
Have the SNP said what pay they think politicians should get in an independent Scotland?
Tim Reid @TimReidBBC 1h Scottish FM on mp pay rise: “Pay for MPs and MSPs should not rise beyond the limits of the restraints currently placed on public sector pay"
I don't believe any of these polls matter until the extent of Romanian and Bulgarian immigration is apparent.
Rioting/civil disturbance seems a distinct possibility in some areas given what has already been reported. The Tories will get the blame.
There will be major problems in years to come if immigration is curtailed simply because the population is getting older and the burden of support falls on a dwindling percentage of those in work.
Fools who go on about the immigrant "problem" never mention demographic change.
Our future prosperity depends on more immigration
Not on poor unskilled immigrants it bloody doesn't.
You can't make any statements about curbing immigration without dealing with the demographic point. We need an influx of economically active adults to deal with the ageing population.
You use the words 'Economically active',Well wasn't that part of the trouble with the immigrants moving into Sheffield,like I posted,not unskilled poor we don't need.
On your ageing population point -
So when the immigrants who you say need to come here for our ageing population get old,we need even more immigration to replace them,madness with a baby boom
I don't believe any of these polls matter until the extent of Romanian and Bulgarian immigration is apparent.
Rioting/civil disturbance seems a distinct possibility in some areas given what has already been reported. The Tories will get the blame.
There will be major problems in years to come if immigration is curtailed simply because the population is getting older and the burden of support falls on a dwindling percentage of those in work.
Fools who go on about the immigrant "problem" never mention demographic change.
Our future prosperity depends on more immigration
Not on poor unskilled immigrants it bloody doesn't.
You can't make any statements about curbing immigration without dealing with the demographic point. We need an influx of economically active adults to deal with the ageing population.
As I posted below, the French are having some success dealing with this problem. In addition one can quite easily demonstrate how technology reduces the number of jobs that require manual labour.
Does anyone really think that in 50 years time we won't have humanoid robots and very few human Doctors and nurses?
This all points to the fact that the Earth is overpopulated with humans. There will have to be a cull, natural or by other means. But who would have the will to prevent copulation by force?
No there won't. The European population was declining naturally, until mass immigration, technology will take care of the aged as it is in some respects already doing.
Civilised countries have declining populations because children survive childhood and we don't all work on farms.
Have the SNP said what pay they think politicians should get in an independent Scotland?
Tim Reid @TimReidBBC 1h Scottish FM on mp pay rise: “Pay for MPs and MSPs should not rise beyond the limits of the restraints currently placed on public sector pay"
Have the SNP said what pay they think politicians should get in an independent Scotland?
Tim Reid @TimReidBBC 1h Scottish FM on mp pay rise: “Pay for MPs and MSPs should not rise beyond the limits of the restraints currently placed on public sector pay"
That's easy for six-pensions FM Eck to say.
Also easy for multi-millionaire Dave to say, with the difference that Eck might actually make sure it happens.
Rioting/civil disturbance seems a distinct possibility in some areas given what has already been reported. The Tories will get the blame.
There will be major problems in years to come if immigration is curtailed simply because the population is getting older and the burden of support falls on a dwindling percentage of those in work.
Fools who go on about the immigrant "problem" never mention demographic change.
Our future prosperity depends on more immigration
Not on poor unskilled immigrants it bloody doesn't.
You can't make any statements about curbing immigration without dealing with the demographic point. We need an influx of economically active adults to deal with the ageing population.
As I posted below, the French are having some success dealing with this problem. In addition one can quite easily demonstrate how technology reduces the number of jobs that require manual labour.
Does anyone really think that in 50 years time we won't have humanoid robots and very few human Doctors and nurses?
This all points to the fact that the Earth is overpopulated with humans. There will have to be a cull, natural or by other means. But who would have the will to prevent copulation by force?
No there won't. The European population was declining naturally, until mass immigration, technology will take care of the aged as it is in some respects already doing.
Civilised countries have declining populations because children survive childhood and we don't all work on farms.
Ther robots taking over is another argument ;-)
You've got your knickers in a twist somewhere, Swiss_Bob. 1. "technology will take care of the aged as it is in some respects already doing." How? Where? 2. "Civilised countries have declining populations because children survive childhood!" I should have thought the reverse was more obvious.
1. How, er medicine, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robotic_surgery 2. You are showing your ignorance, is it really necessary for me to prove this to you? It is like arguing the sky isn't blue.
Have the SNP said what pay they think politicians should get in an independent Scotland?
Tim Reid @TimReidBBC 1h Scottish FM on mp pay rise: “Pay for MPs and MSPs should not rise beyond the limits of the restraints currently placed on public sector pay"
That's easy for six-pensions FM Eck to say.
Also easy for multi-millionaire Dave to say, with the difference that Eck might actually make sure it happens.
You don't think Salmond isn't worth a few million himself ? Nice to see the nats rejoin the Union with my millionaire's better than your millionaire. Welcome back.
Or for the ageing population to become more economically active. Or to get more of the other economically inactive British residents more active.
Just relying on immigration, as we do now, is lazily condemning millions to less fulfilling lives than they deserve or are capable of.
Have you seen a "native" Brit do any menial tasks in the South East of England ?
Seldom. And I live in a ward where in 2001 over 40% of households had no one in work, and I doubt much has changed since.
I don't see this as something to accept as inevitable or tolerable.
Sadly, it is true. Even with Minimum Wage it has hardly changed. I support Minimum Wage since it reduces poverty levels and reduces benefits. But clearly, in the South East, certain types of work is stigmatised and non-immigrants do not seem to do them.
Funnily enough, in Germany, I can see many Hotel workers are German [ though I always cannot be sure that they are not East Europeans who speak German ]
You don't think Salmond isn't worth a few million himself ?
I have no idea. However we can be sure not one iota of his wealth is inherited, and that it won't be further inflated by embarkation on the British establishment gravy train.
If they exercised their true feelings they'd give themselves a larger rise and wouldn't change the pension scheme! That's what happened in 1996 when they were last facing a large potential turnover. I applied to stand when the pay was something like £34,000, and was agreeably surprised to find it had become £43000 or something by the time I got in. Delegating it to IPSA makes sense, because it removes both the temptation of MPs to be greedy and for front benches to be parsimonious to score points with the public. Moreover, there are very few examples nowadays of people deciding their own pay rises. And aren't you simultaneously arguing that they should "govern themselves" and be "tied to something outwith their control"?
Anyway, what is clearly unacceptable is to say that IPSA gets to decide, except when they decide an increase, in which case MPs should stop it. Either MPs should have responsibility and the right to increase their salaries if they're prepared to face the public over it, or they shouldn't have the right to decide at all. (I don't think they should, because with FPTP the majority in safe seats could vote themselves much larger increases and still get away with it.)
Like I said, both pay rise and pension cut will happen, and Cameron won't stop it. We can bet on it if you like!
Delegating it to IPSA makes no sense because, philosophically, it says that MPs are unable to put the national interest above their personal/sectional interests. And therefore, almost by definition, they are incapable of doing their job.
There is a difference between MPs agreeing a formula (e.g. tying it to increases in the average wage) but reserving the right to change that formula, and delegating that authority to a third party. They should make their decision and be prepared to defend it in public.
No bet: the changes will happen as proposed. My view is that Cameron should have the courage to stand up and say that it is wrong.
I worked putting up stalls on Romford Market, I've cleaned cars... What an example to all native Brits!
On both sides, it seems to become an all-or-nothing game. Idiots shout "No immigration" and "send them all back", whilst others shout "We need immigrants!"
The truth is in the middle. I've benefited from immigration, so am hardly against it, but neither do I think that uncontrolled immigration does anyone any good. There is a middle ground, but it gets lost in the anger.
The worst thing about this 'debate' is that it makes perfectly law-abiding, well-educated and highly-paid immigrants feel as though they are not welcome. And if they feel unwelcome, how do the hard-working and law-abiding immigrants feel?
Yes to immigration. No to uncontrolled immigration. Yes to rational debate.
Have the SNP said what pay they think politicians should get in an independent Scotland?
Tim Reid @TimReidBBC 1h Scottish FM on mp pay rise: “Pay for MPs and MSPs should not rise beyond the limits of the restraints currently placed on public sector pay"
So we can look forward to an SNP MP introducing an amendment to prevent the IPSA rules coming into force?
You don't think Salmond isn't worth a few million himself ?
I have no idea. However we can be sure not one iota of his wealth is inherited, and that it won't be further inflated by embarkation on the British establishment gravy train.
he's already on the british establishment gravy train and has been for quite some time.
And re inherited wealth, are you telling me no-one leaves money to their kids in Scotland ? Will you be leaving all you cash to the SNP or a cats' home when you die instead of any of your relatives ?
You don't think Salmond isn't worth a few million himself ?
I have no idea. However we can be sure not one iota of his wealth is inherited, and that it won't be further inflated by embarkation on the British establishment gravy train.
Ed Balls's problem isn’t that he goes red when he shouts, but that he personifies Labour’s economic credibility problem. With Ed Miliband in a far stronger position than he was this summer, Balls is now Labour’s weak link. One figure influential with Miliband says about Balls: ‘When everything was going terribly, it didn’t matter.’ But now things are improving, it does. Balls’s supporters have made much of how aggressively the Tories heckled him on Thursday. What should worry Balls is not the noise from the other side, but the silence from his own. One Labour MP usually sympathetic to him says: ‘We all didn’t know where to look. It was just awful.’
Delegating it to IPSA makes no sense because, philosophically, it says that MPs are unable to put the national interest above their personal/sectional interests. And therefore, almost by definition, they are incapable of doing their job.
There is a difference between MPs agreeing a formula (e.g. tying it to increases in the average wage) but reserving the right to change that formula, and delegating that authority to a third party. They should make their decision and be prepared to defend it in public.
You'd be OK in principle with MPs voting themselves a rise to £100K plus average wage increases thereafter and defending it in public? There are lots of MPs with safe seats who would do exactly that, and would make the sort of comparability and national interest arguments ("MPs are 1 hundred thousandths of the population and it's important we get the best people to run the country", "it's much less than [outrageous example] X" etc.) that we've seen here as well. There is a case that can be made, as for almost any other profession or trade, but in almost no other profession or trade do the people with an interest make the final decision.
What they've done instead is decide the principle of determining salaries by comparability but referred the detailed assessment to an independent body. That seems a reasonable balance, and I'd say the same if IPSA had decided that salaries should be reduced. If it had, I think the public would be demanding that IPSA be left alone and MPs should stay away from the decision, don't you think?
You don't think Salmond isn't worth a few million himself ?
I have no idea. However we can be sure not one iota of his wealth is inherited, and that it won't be further inflated by embarkation on the British establishment gravy train.
he's already on the british establishment gravy train and has been for quite some time.
And re inherited wealth, are you telling me no-one leaves money to their kids in Scotland ? Will you be leaving all you cash to the SNP or a cats' home when you die instead of any of your relatives ?
Really? He and other members of the SNP have refused to enter at least one of the carriages on the gravy train, the HoL with all the lucrative baubles that follow.
Salmond's father's still alive (despite the wishes of those nice Unionist types), so I doubt any inheritance has come Eck's way. If and when it does I doubt it'll be even a fraction of the Cameron family tax haven millions.
Mrs T is absolutely the wrong target on Apartheid. Her faults were many and various but on this issue she was - in the final analysis - a force for change. Lefties would be better placed reminding others of the nutters on the Tory right who actively supported Apartheid and were entertained at the SA retentionists' pleasure on numerous occasions.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 32s On WorldThisWeekend, Lab peer Lord Puttnam says EdMiliband is still a "gift" to the Opposition. Another top @beckmilligan iview
@iainmartin1: Here we go. Queue of independently wealthy MPs and people with ministerial salaries line up to say they won't take a pay rise.
That doesn't include Alex Salmond of course. Oh, wait...
'Oh, wait' should be immediately installed on the verboten list along with 'ad Hom', 'going gangbusters', 'look squirrel' and 'kicking the can down the road'.
Search engine in danger of overheating today Monica?
Telegraph - boing! Scotsman - boing! Daily Record - boing!
Here's a wee tip for you, you can shorten links at http://tinyurl.com/ This a) stops you from splattering your posts with enormously long urls, and b) hides your transparently Unionist sources.
Delegating it to IPSA makes no sense because, philosophically, it says that MPs are unable to put the national interest above their personal/sectional interests. And therefore, almost by definition, they are incapable of doing their job.
There is a difference between MPs agreeing a formula (e.g. tying it to increases in the average wage) but reserving the right to change that formula, and delegating that authority to a third party. They should make their decision and be prepared to defend it in public.
You'd be OK in principle with MPs voting themselves a rise to £100K plus average wage increases thereafter and defending it in public? There are lots of MPs with safe seats who would do exactly that, and would make the sort of comparability and national interest arguments ("MPs are 1 hundred thousandths of the population and it's important we get the best people to run the country", "it's much less than [outrageous example] X" etc.) that we've seen here as well. There is a case that can be made, as for almost any other profession or trade, but in almost no other profession or trade do the people with an interest make the final decision.
What they've done instead is decide the principle of determining salaries by comparability but referred the detailed assessment to an independent body. That seems a reasonable balance, and I'd say the same if IPSA had decided that salaries should be reduced. If it had, I think the public would be demanding that IPSA be left alone and MPs should stay away from the decision, don't you think?
In principle, yes. I'd be disgusted by the behaviour and would be happy to help fund a campaign to unseat any MP who did precisely that. But fundamentally, they are elected to take decisions for the good of the country, and to put another body in charge of their pay and rations (and I have the same issue with the Standards commission - forget the exact name).
That's why I would set a level and then tie it to average wage increases to depoliticise it. Being an MP should pay enough that people are not worried about paying the bills, so they can focus on their jobs, but it should be a vocation not a career. The argument "but I could make millions in the private sector" is bullsh1t. If that's what's important to you, then go and work in the private sector.
Mrs T is absolutely the wrong target on Apartheid. Her faults were many and various but on this issue she was - in the final analysis - a force for change. Lefties would be better placed reminding others of the nutters on the Tory right who actively supported Apartheid and were entertained at the SA retentionists' pleasure on numerous occasions.
Pretty much agree with that. I'd say the same for those on the left who supported loathsome leftist regimes.
One difference is that there are still plenty of loud voices on the left supporting (say) Venezuela.
@iainmartin1: Here we go. Queue of independently wealthy MPs and people with ministerial salaries line up to say they won't take a pay rise.
That doesn't include Alex Salmond of course. Oh, wait...
'Oh, wait' should be immediately installed on the verboten list along with 'ad Hom', 'going gangbusters', 'look squirrel' and 'kicking the can down the road'.
You don't think Salmond isn't worth a few million himself ?
I have no idea. However we can be sure not one iota of his wealth is inherited, and that it won't be further inflated by embarkation on the British establishment gravy train.
he's already on the british establishment gravy train and has been for quite some time.
And re inherited wealth, are you telling me no-one leaves money to their kids in Scotland ? Will you be leaving all you cash to the SNP or a cats' home when you die instead of any of your relatives ?
Really? He and other members of the SNP have refused to enter at least one of the carriages on the gravy train, the HoL and all the lucrative baubles that follow.
Salmond's father's still alive (despite the wishes of those nice Unionist types), so I doubt any inheritance has come Eck's way. If and when it does I doubt it'll be even a fraction of the Cameron family tax haven millions.
Blustery in Scotland today I see.
Why does he need the HoL when he has so many other carriages to chose from ?. As FM he's on about £130k plus expenses, so he's hardly on the breadline. he's a wealthy man by any account.
As for your fascination with Cameron, bar the jealousy factor that he's fortunte in being well off is there any particular reason why his father leaving him his estate is more objectionable that any one else's parent doing the same ? Leaving your children your money and possessions is probably one of the oldest human activities going and crosses not just time, but class, creed , race and anything else you can think of.
You don't think Salmond isn't worth a few million himself ?
I have no idea. However we can be sure not one iota of his wealth is inherited, and that it won't be further inflated by embarkation on the British establishment gravy train.
he's already on the british establishment gravy train and has been for quite some time.
And re inherited wealth, are you telling me no-one leaves money to their kids in Scotland ? Will you be leaving all you cash to the SNP or a cats' home when you die instead of any of your relatives ?
Really? He and other members of the SNP have refused to enter at least one of the carriages on the gravy train, the HoL with all the lucrative baubles that follow.
Salmond's father's still alive (despite the wishes of those nice Unionist types), so I doubt any inheritance has come Eck's way. If and when it does I doubt it'll be even a fraction of the Cameron family tax haven millions.
If SNP's got a problem with inherited wealth , maybe they should transfer this money to the Scottish NHS ;
I worked putting up stalls on Romford Market, I've cleaned cars... What an example to all native Brits!
On both sides, it seems to become an all-or-nothing game. Idiots shout "No immigration" and "send them all back", whilst others shout "We need immigrants!"
The truth is in the middle. I've benefited from immigration, so am hardly against it, but neither do I think that uncontrolled immigration does anyone any good. There is a middle ground, but it gets lost in the anger.
The worst thing about this 'debate' is that it makes perfectly law-abiding, well-educated and highly-paid immigrants feel as though they are not welcome. And if they feel unwelcome, how do the hard-working and law-abiding immigrants feel?
Yes to immigration. No to uncontrolled immigration. Yes to rational debate.
Now to work out exactly what that means... ;-)
Well exactly.
No one is calling for an end to immigration..., The left like to pretend people are forwarding that argument as if it were the counter to their policy of uncontrolled immigration
Mr. Bob, there's a suggestion reliability could be the worse it's been for several years in 2014. Safety cars, number of classified finishers and the like could be good betting markets. Also, with engines/power trains becoming more differentiated than has recently been the case we might see a divergence between qualifying and race pace, due to raw power and efficiency.
I worked putting up stalls on Romford Market, I've cleaned cars... What an example to all native Brits!
On both sides, it seems to become an all-or-nothing game. Idiots shout "No immigration" and "send them all back", whilst others shout "We need immigrants!"
The truth is in the middle. I've benefited from immigration, so am hardly against it, but neither do I think that uncontrolled immigration does anyone any good. There is a middle ground, but it gets lost in the anger.
The worst thing about this 'debate' is that it makes perfectly law-abiding, well-educated and highly-paid immigrants feel as though they are not welcome. And if they feel unwelcome, how do the hard-working and law-abiding immigrants feel?
Yes to immigration. No to uncontrolled immigration. Yes to rational debate.
Now to work out exactly what that means... ;-)
Well exactly.
No one is calling for an end to immigration..., The left like to pretend people are forwarding that argument as if it were the counter to their policy of uncontrolled immigration
Quite.
I've been called a fool and a pig for mentioning immigration of Bulgarians and Romanians in the context of how it might affect polling on political parties without saying it is either a good or bad thing when clearly I was mentioning it in the aforesaid context.
Blustery in Scotland today I see. Why does he need the HoL when he has so many other carriages to chose from ?. As FM he's on about £130k plus expenses, so he's hardly on the breadline. he's a wealthy man by any account. As for your fascination with Cameron, bar the jealousy factor that he's fortunte in being well off is there any particular reason why his father leaving him his estate is more objectionable that any one else's parent doing the same ? Leaving your children your money and possessions is probably one of the oldest human activities going and crosses not just time, but class, creed , race and anything else you can think of.
Fascination with Cameron? Even on the basis that I post on here a lot less than you, a tiny proportion of them mention Cameron. On that ratio you appear to have an extremely unhealthy obsession with Salmond. If you want to be governed by a hierarchical, nostalgic plutocracy based on deference and privilege, carry on. I don't and will continue to point out the differences.
Comments
@nicholaswatt How long will it take for Labour to clarify @ChrisLeslieMP to @afneil + say pensions triple lock applies in all circumstances #bbcsp
That his odds are longer than Ricciardo is slightly bonkers. Yes, Ricciardo will be in a Red Bull, and yes, Red Bull gave dominated recently. But the rule changes and the fact Ricciardo has to beat Vettel to win the title means his odds should be longer.
Rosberg has essentially matched Hamilton in 2013, and has a slightly better points-per-finished ratio, but Hamilton's odds are 6.4. Rosberg is not four times less likely to win the title, in my view.
Of course, this is a bit of a shot in the dark. You may prefer Magnussen at 32 (34 with Ladbrokes, having previously been 51, when I put on a small stake) if you're going for a wild shot.
I suspect Ferrari will fail to develop their car and we could see some furious fireworks when Alonso and Raikkonen go head to head. My guess is that 2014 will be mostly a Mercedes Vs Red Bull contest.
I'd advise against putting on significant stakes at this stage, as it's all guesswork, and we can't know how reliable the various teams are until the season kicks off. It could be that reliability actually matters more than pace.
However, given the new cars and engines there's a greater likelihood of failure, in-race betting on the top three could be good value.
PS You can still get 1.28 on SA, who in my opinion are thrashing India, again.
But I would reject your argument. A Romanian doctor would seem a better bet than a single mother with 3 children, or a Somalian jihadi. Yes the doctor might end up having a nervous breakdown in a few years and spending the rest of their life on ESA, and the lone parent might end up running a profitable business from home... but on the balance of probabilities...
I bet I can't go to Germany and claim means tested benifits, but you can come to the UK and do that as long as you can pass the Habitual Residency Test, ie show you are planning to live here.
http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/111650
I think that the frothers might be having some trouble working out what that sentence meant.
Pay restraint in the 80s was not the issue - it was (a) the backdoor and (b) abuse by this generation of MPs of the backdoor.
I would go for a 2 year pay freeze and then, in perpetuity, tie it to the increase in average wages. If I could get away with it, I'd say zero rise if the deficit is >2% of GDP because they are failing in their job to keep the executive in check
Instead, I think I'd go for something someone proposed on here a while back - link MP pay increase to the NMW. If the NMW increases, so does MP pay.
The change in pensions has been repeatedly announced and will also happen, with effect from May 2015. That's in the IPSA package too and is one of the balancing measures that they see for the rise in base salary. Again, MPs won't get to vote on it.
Apologists for Apartheid, will read apologists for Pinochet, apologists for nuclear power, apologists for England selectors, apologists for David Moyes...
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/
@NickPalmer: I don't care whether pensions have been repeatedly announced or not. It is simply wrong. And yes, restraint would play badly with Cameron's backbenchers, but it would play well with the public. And IPSA generally is a bad thing: if parliament is to have the moral authoirty to govern us, then they need to have the strength of mind to govern themselves
And also gives us the added comedy of a member of the 'make the white vote angry' party who chooses to live in a 98% white area frothing about immigration and segregation.
;-)
Well said, MPs are elected and paid to make the difficult decisions and be democratically accountable for it. If they cant justify to the public why they deserve a pay rise then they should think about why that is rather than getting their mates to do it behind closed doors.
It's correct to reallocate some of the kippers back to Con, but not that many.
They are hated far too much !
Does anyone really think that in 50 years time we won't have humanoid robots and very few human Doctors and nurses?
Just relying on immigration, as we do now, is lazily condemning millions to less fulfilling lives than they deserve or are capable of.
Anyway, what is clearly unacceptable is to say that IPSA gets to decide, except when they decide an increase, in which case MPs should stop it. Either MPs should have responsibility and the right to increase their salaries if they're prepared to face the public over it, or they shouldn't have the right to decide at all. (I don't think they should, because with FPTP the majority in safe seats could vote themselves much larger increases and still get away with it.)
Like I said, both pay rise and pension cut will happen, and Cameron won't stop it. We can bet on it if you like!
Is he still alive ?
I don't see this as something to accept as inevitable or tolerable.
Scottish FM on mp pay rise: “Pay for MPs and MSPs should not rise beyond the limits of the restraints currently placed on public sector pay"
You use the words 'Economically active',Well wasn't that part of the trouble with the immigrants moving into Sheffield,like I posted,not unskilled poor we don't need.
On your ageing population point -
So when the immigrants who you say need to come here for our ageing population get old,we need even more immigration to replace them,madness with a baby boom
Civilised countries have declining populations because children survive childhood and we don't all work on farms.
Ther robots taking over is another argument ;-)
Nice!
Rioting/civil disturbance seems a distinct possibility in some areas given what has already been reported. The Tories will get the blame.
There will be major problems in years to come if immigration is curtailed simply because the population is getting older and the burden of support falls on a dwindling percentage of those in work.
Fools who go on about the immigrant "problem" never mention demographic change.
Our future prosperity depends on more immigration
Not on poor unskilled immigrants it bloody doesn't.
You can't make any statements about curbing immigration without dealing with the demographic point. We need an influx of economically active adults to deal with the ageing population.
As I posted below, the French are having some success dealing with this problem. In addition one can quite easily demonstrate how technology reduces the number of jobs that require manual labour.
Does anyone really think that in 50 years time we won't have humanoid robots and very few human Doctors and nurses?
This all points to the fact that the Earth is overpopulated with humans. There will have to be a cull, natural or by other means. But who would have the will to prevent copulation by force?
No there won't. The European population was declining naturally, until mass immigration, technology will take care of the aged as it is in some respects already doing.
Civilised countries have declining populations because children survive childhood and we don't all work on farms.
Ther robots taking over is another argument ;-)
You've got your knickers in a twist somewhere, Swiss_Bob.
1. "technology will take care of the aged as it is in some respects already doing." How? Where?
2. "Civilised countries have declining populations because children survive childhood!" I should have thought the reverse was more obvious.
Dougie Alexander may be even more ambitious than we thought. http://tinyurl.com/owdfycj
Then I found myself a nice lucrative desk-job and travelled the World.
This pathetic argument that Brits aren't prepared to work is racist, there I resorted to the left's intellectually dishonest bull.
2. You are showing your ignorance, is it really necessary for me to prove this to you? It is like arguing the sky isn't blue.
Funnily enough, in Germany, I can see many Hotel workers are German [ though I always cannot be sure that they are not East Europeans who speak German ]
And for all the shouts of racism, it's rare to see a right wing poster ever target a group of people in that way.
Witness the shifting sides of stats vs man in the street depending on whether its immigration or the economy.
only @SouthamObserver has had the guts to admit this
I worked putting up stalls on Romford Market, I've cleaned cars... What an example to all native Brits!
There is a difference between MPs agreeing a formula (e.g. tying it to increases in the average wage) but reserving the right to change that formula, and delegating that authority to a third party. They should make their decision and be prepared to defend it in public.
No bet: the changes will happen as proposed. My view is that Cameron should have the courage to stand up and say that it is wrong.
The truth is in the middle. I've benefited from immigration, so am hardly against it, but neither do I think that uncontrolled immigration does anyone any good. There is a middle ground, but it gets lost in the anger.
The worst thing about this 'debate' is that it makes perfectly law-abiding, well-educated and highly-paid immigrants feel as though they are not welcome. And if they feel unwelcome, how do the hard-working and law-abiding immigrants feel?
Yes to immigration.
No to uncontrolled immigration.
Yes to rational debate.
Now to work out exactly what that means... ;-)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9563343/Alex-Salmond-spends-370000-on-entertaining.html
Of course, he would never claim for anything personal
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/435017/Alex-Salmond-embroiled-in-secrecy-row-over-250-tartan-trews
And re inherited wealth, are you telling me no-one leaves money to their kids in Scotland ? Will you be leaving all you cash to the SNP or a cats' home when you die instead of any of your relatives ?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9563343/Alex-Salmond-spends-370000-on-entertaining.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5299733/Alex-Salmond-claimed-800-for-food-on-MPs-expenses-during-recess.html
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/outcry-at-alex-salmond-s-500-000-ryder-cup-bill-1-2665918
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/independence-critics-claim-snp-leader-1973778
That doesn't include Alex Salmond of course. Oh, wait...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
What they've done instead is decide the principle of determining salaries by comparability but referred the detailed assessment to an independent body. That seems a reasonable balance, and I'd say the same if IPSA had decided that salaries should be reduced. If it had, I think the public would be demanding that IPSA be left alone and MPs should stay away from the decision, don't you think?
Salmond's father's still alive (despite the wishes of those nice Unionist types), so I doubt any inheritance has come Eck's way. If and when it does I doubt it'll be even a fraction of the Cameron family tax haven millions.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 32s
On WorldThisWeekend, Lab peer Lord Puttnam says EdMiliband is still a "gift" to the Opposition. Another top @beckmilligan iview
Ugh.
India 29-3 and SA now 1.14.
Telegraph - boing!
Scotsman - boing!
Daily Record - boing!
Here's a wee tip for you, you can shorten links at http://tinyurl.com/
This a) stops you from splattering your posts with enormously long urls, and b) hides your transparently Unionist sources.
That's why I would set a level and then tie it to average wage increases to depoliticise it. Being an MP should pay enough that people are not worried about paying the bills, so they can focus on their jobs, but it should be a vocation not a career. The argument "but I could make millions in the private sector" is bullsh1t. If that's what's important to you, then go and work in the private sector.
One difference is that there are still plenty of loud voices on the left supporting (say) Venezuela.
Absolutely agree on the "oh, wait" smugness
Why does he need the HoL when he has so many other carriages to chose from ?. As FM he's on about £130k plus expenses, so he's hardly on the breadline. he's a wealthy man by any account.
As for your fascination with Cameron, bar the jealousy factor that he's fortunte in being well off is there any particular reason why his father leaving him his estate is more objectionable that any one else's parent doing the same ? Leaving your children your money and possessions is probably one of the oldest human activities going and crosses not just time, but class, creed , race and anything else you can think of.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/jun/20/edwin-morgan-leaves-snp-1m-in-will
No one is calling for an end to immigration..., The left like to pretend people are forwarding that argument as if it were the counter to their policy of uncontrolled immigration
Mr. Bob, there's a suggestion reliability could be the worse it's been for several years in 2014. Safety cars, number of classified finishers and the like could be good betting markets. Also, with engines/power trains becoming more differentiated than has recently been the case we might see a divergence between qualifying and race pace, due to raw power and efficiency.
I've been called a fool and a pig for mentioning immigration of Bulgarians and Romanians in the context of how it might affect polling on political parties without saying it is either a good or bad thing when clearly I was mentioning it in the aforesaid context.
SA 1.11 :-)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25289743
LATEST:A future Labour government should reintroduce 50% top rate of income tax, former Labour leader Lord Kinnock says
If you want to be governed by a hierarchical, nostalgic plutocracy based on deference and privilege, carry on. I don't and will continue to point out the differences.