Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour’s much more variable performance in different catego

SystemSystem Posts: 11,706
edited January 2014 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour’s much more variable performance in different categories of seat helps it benefit most from First Past The Post

We’ve said it many times before but it is worth saying again. To maximise a party’s votes:seats ratio the best thing you can do is perform differently in different sorts of seats.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • Options
    Interesting
  • Options
    On populus, Sleazy Broken Labour on the slide.
  • Options
    AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    It's railing cats and dogs

    Eurotunnel reports:

    Groupe Eurotunnel carried nearly 210,000 cars, motorbikes, coaches and other passenger vehicles on its shuttles between Friday December 13th 2013 and Sunday January 5th, compared with nearly 200,000 vehicles at the same time a year ago.

    Eurotunnel, which runs trains between Folkestone in the UK and Calais in France, said it laid on more services during the period in response to expected demand.

    It said it also carried a daily record of nearly 1,400 dogs and cats on Saturday January 4th, which it said reflected the appeal of its services to travellers who wanted to keep their pets with them during the crossing.
  • Options
    But Cons not benefiting from that slide?
  • Options
    AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815

    But Cons not benefiting from that slide?

    The slide rules, Comrade.
  • Options
    LennonLennon Posts: 1,736
    edited January 2014
    Interesting, although of course what happens to one party is affected by what happens to the other parties. Given that the Cleggasm most affected non-LD actual or target seats (ie Con/Lab), and that a large proportion of the Cleggasm voters were ex-Lab or 'soft' leftish it is no real surprise that this seat was the one where Lab did worst. (as they voted LD instead)
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited January 2014
  • Options
    AveryLP said:

    But Cons not benefiting from that slide?

    The slide rules, Comrade.
    We seem to be polls apart on this, Tovarish!
  • Options
    AndyJS said:
    Brilliant stuff, Andy, many thanks!
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,075
    Oh dear:
    The National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) is threatening to sue its former leader Arthur Scargill for £100,000, a BBC Inside Out investigation has found.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-25681118
  • Options
    MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    @AndyJS

    Brilliant stuff and thank you.

    I'd quite like to create a page with links to all your excellent spreadsheets. Is that possible?
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395

    @AndyJS

    Brilliant stuff and thank you.

    I'd quite like to create a page with links to all your excellent spreadsheets. Is that possible?

    Yes, that would be fine. I wanted to do one myself but haven't got round to it.

    The percentage changes aren't on that spreadsheet yet, but they are available on my 2010 election night running totals document, on the far right-hand side:

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dE9GYzdTNDJBVklJeXV4MV9DN3YzRmc#gid=0
  • Options
    fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,279
    It all adds to the increasing air of chaos that surrounds Hollande's Presidency.
    The Economist - A very public private affair
  • Options
    LennonLennon Posts: 1,736

    AndyJS said:
    Brilliant stuff, Andy, many thanks!
    Seconded - Much appreciated.

    Also do you (or anyone else) have a spreadsheet by constituency with demographic data on it? (ie A, B, C1, C2, D, E), Retired v Working, % with a degree, etc. etc. Would be very useful to help identify 'types' of seat / seeing where UKIP could have most traction etc.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,002
    Daniel Hannan ‏@DanHannanMEP 1m
    I'm struggling to understand the Greens' obsession with 'depleting' fossil fuels. I mean, what use are they lying in the ground?
  • Options
    TomTom Posts: 273
    https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/

    Go to Wizard Query, Census 2011, select the dataset you want and then parliamentary Constituencies for the Geography. Will give you virtually any variable.
  • Options
    RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    edited January 2014
    I see the French have a tricky constitutional conundrum. The First Mistress has a taxpayer-funded office in the Elysee Palace with six staff. How many staff should be allocated to the Second Mistress?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25711091
  • Options
    LennonLennon Posts: 1,736
    Tom said:

    https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/

    Go to Wizard Query, Census 2011, select the dataset you want and then parliamentary Constituencies for the Geography. Will give you virtually any variable.

    Thanks - very helpful starting point if not exactly what I was looking for straight off.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,073

    I see the French have a tricky constitutional conundrum. The First Mistress has a taxpayer-funded office in the Elysee Palace with six staff. How many staff should be allocated to the Second Mistress?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25711091

    She should get 12, and a house in the outskirts of Paris. The third mistress should get 24 and a beachfront house in Cannes. The fourth mistress should get 48 and Versailles.
  • Options
    EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915
    Afternoon folks. Have I correctly read the diagram above as showing that in seats where the Tories were defending from Labour in 2010, Labour had the greatest vote loss of 9% and in seats Labour were defending from the Tories in 2010, Labour had its 2nd greatest vote loss of 7% ? Surely that means that Labour votes seeped away where it did matter which is why it lost over 90 seats or am I missing something!
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,090
    Another Unionist lie nailed as reality sinks in , not be long till they admit that they desperately want a sterling zone as well. The deal will be an internal negotiated deal and UK retain all the international debt obligations.
    Scottish independence: UK debt to be guaranteed
    http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/scottish-independence-uk-debt-to-be-guaranteed-1-3266159
  • Options
    EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915
    malcolmg said:

    Another Unionist lie nailed as reality sinks in , not be long till they admit that they desperately want a sterling zone as well. The deal will be an internal negotiated deal and UK retain all the international debt obligations.
    Scottish independence: UK debt to be guaranteed
    http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/scottish-independence-uk-debt-to-be-guaranteed-1-3266159

    Malcolm I watched the news coverage of this today. My reading was that the UK Treasury was moving to protect the UK's current good bond interest rate which was in jeopardy if the markets think Scotland will break away. This will enable rumpUK to inherit these good rates and from Independence Scotland will sink or swim on its own.

    I think this is a clear indication the Bank of England will announce in the event of a Yes vote it will not continue to act as lender of last resort for Scottish banks and Scotland will effectively be deprived of protection of the pound. The groat's return has come that bit closer.

    In an Independent Scotland, Socialists are in for one hell of a shock as the international economic bodies force the 1st Scottish government to adopt policies which make George Osborne's austerity look like a giveaway. The public sector will be decimated and a great many people in the Scottish public sector will have to learn what hard work is very quickly.
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,459
    edited January 2014
    Pulpstar said:

    Daniel Hannan ‏@DanHannanMEP 1m
    I'm struggling to understand the Greens' obsession with 'depleting' fossil fuels. I mean, what use are they lying in the ground?

    Fossil fuels will be of no use to anyone if they're depleted!
  • Options
    malcolmg said:

    Another Unionist lie nailed as reality sinks in , not be long till they admit that they desperately want a sterling zone as well. The deal will be an internal negotiated deal and UK retain all the international debt obligations.
    Scottish independence: UK debt to be guaranteed
    http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/scottish-independence-uk-debt-to-be-guaranteed-1-3266159

    Salmond has got the wrong end of the stick. Why do you parrot the deluded utterances of this economic dunce?

  • Options
    smithersjones2013smithersjones2013 Posts: 740
    edited January 2014
    Tories in Euro meltdown part 3

    Ken Clarke hits out at Cameron immigration claims
    Cabinet minister Ken Clarke disputes Prime Minister's claims that EU rules have led to "vast migrations" and says that foreigners make the UK "far more exciting and healthier".


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10567766/Ken-Clarke-hits-out-at-Cameron-immigration-claims.html

    With the Coalition on target to let 1 million new migrants net in over 5 years only the 'Mad Monk of Europhilia' could come out with such a demented rant
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,090

    malcolmg said:

    Another Unionist lie nailed as reality sinks in , not be long till they admit that they desperately want a sterling zone as well. The deal will be an internal negotiated deal and UK retain all the international debt obligations.
    Scottish independence: UK debt to be guaranteed
    http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/scottish-independence-uk-debt-to-be-guaranteed-1-3266159

    Malcolm I watched the news coverage of this today. My reading was that the UK Treasury was moving to protect the UK's current good bond interest rate which was in jeopardy if the markets think Scotland will break away. This will enable rumpUK to inherit these good rates and from Independence Scotland will sink or swim on its own.

    I think this is a clear indication the Bank of England will announce in the event of a Yes vote it will not continue to act as lender of last resort for Scottish banks and Scotland will effectively be deprived of protection of the pound. The groat's return has come that bit closer.

    In an Independent Scotland, Socialists are in for one hell of a shock as the international economic bodies force the 1st Scottish government to adopt policies which make George Osborne's austerity look like a giveaway. The public sector will be decimated and a great many people in the Scottish public sector will have to learn what hard work is very quickly.
    Easterross, I see it slightly differently , in my view it is acceptance that they will have no option other than to have a sterling zone and it is only a matter of time before they will need to state this as the markets see the YES vote climb and prospect of teh impact on rump UK GDP , balance of payments etc.
    They have forced themselves into the corner with their stupid positioning.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,090

    malcolmg said:

    Another Unionist lie nailed as reality sinks in , not be long till they admit that they desperately want a sterling zone as well. The deal will be an internal negotiated deal and UK retain all the international debt obligations.
    Scottish independence: UK debt to be guaranteed
    http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/scottish-independence-uk-debt-to-be-guaranteed-1-3266159

    Salmond has got the wrong end of the stick. Why do you parrot the deluded utterances of this economic dunce?

    Monica , LOL, read the whitepaper , this very thing is stated in there and was roundly rubbished by the unionists even yesterday , they have been hoist by their own petard.
  • Options
    I think Easterross is right and MalcolmG not. The BoE / Treasury indeed want to protect UK debt interest rates by confirming they will guarantee Scottish elements of the UK's debt (actually the Telegraph is reporting they would settle coupon & principal directly and claim reimbursement from Scotland).

    This can only mean the rUK is looking after its own arse and Scottish needs will not drive decision making. Scottish 'independence' seems to mean no independence whatever when it comes to banking and currency. Deary me.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,002

    Pulpstar said:

    Daniel Hannan ‏@DanHannanMEP 1m
    I'm struggling to understand the Greens' obsession with 'depleting' fossil fuels. I mean, what use are they lying in the ground?

    Fossil fuels will be of no use to anyone if they're depleted!
    Yes but his point is valid - we might as well use what's there. Obviously we need to use other fuels too because once the fossil fuels are gone they are gone - but one doesn't preclude the other.
  • Options
    EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915
    Malcolm as someone who hopes to be active in Scottish centre-right politics post Independence (assuming it happens during my lifetime) I hope you are correct but fear you will be proved wrong.
  • Options
    taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Surely the reason ruk wants to guarantee all the debt is so that it can retain the control of interest rates and money supply without having to consult or take into account what will in effect be another country.
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    Tories in Euro meltdown part 3

    Ken Clarke hits out at Cameron immigration claims
    Cabinet minister Ken Clarke disputes Prime Minister's claims that EU rules have led to "vast migrations" and says that foreigners make the UK "far more exciting and healthier".


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10567766/Ken-Clarke-hits-out-at-Cameron-immigration-claims.html

    With the Coalition on target to let 1 million new migrants net in over 5 years only the 'Mad Monk of Europhilia' could come out with such a demented rant

    “The idea that you can have some fundamental debate that somehow stops all these foreigners coming here is rather typical rightwing, nationalist escapism, I think.”

    Ken Clarke has really jumped the shark. He's saying that having a debate about reducing immigration is "rightwing" and "nationalist". I expect this crap from the Labour party but not from Conservative cabinet ministers. Will Cameron have the balls to discipline him?
  • Options
    taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Will Cameron have the balls to discipline him?

    Already slapped him down, according to the front of the telegraph.
  • Options
    MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382

    Tories in Euro meltdown part 3

    Ken Clarke hits out at Cameron immigration claims
    Cabinet minister Ken Clarke disputes Prime Minister's claims that EU rules have led to "vast migrations" and says that foreigners make the UK "far more exciting and healthier".


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10567766/Ken-Clarke-hits-out-at-Cameron-immigration-claims.html

    With the Coalition on target to let 1 million new migrants net in over 5 years only the 'Mad Monk of Europhilia' could come out with such a demented rant

    Can I clarify. You want to make us poorer?

  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,013
    Good afternoon, everyone.

    Mr. K, is burkha-banning UKIP policy?

    Mr. Smithson, only looking at tax receipts and not the costs is somewhat misleading. Plus, the more immigrants who settle here the larger the pensions headache. And that's without considering the wildly varying degrees of integration and risks of enclaves the very different immigrants groups present.

    If immigration were pure prosperity flowing from Elsewhere like a river of gold why bother with migration controls at all? Why not just let in everyone?
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    @Morris_Dancer I'd be far more comfortable with an open door immigration policy than with the mindless restrictions we have at present.

    But much of the discussion about immigration is really a substitute for a discussion about the poor quality of too many British-born workers. Immigration is the symptom, not the disease.
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited January 2014
    SeanT's latest Telegraph piece, presumably penned from the safety and tranquility of Bangkok:

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100254179/what-if-man-made-climate-change-is-all-in-the-mind/
    "What if man-made climate change is all in the mind? "
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,013
    Mr. Antifrank, to a large extent I agree regarding the symptom point. It's rather bonkers having so many Britons on welfare (exclusively) whilst importing foreigners to do so many jobs.

    The welfare system itself needs massive simplification. It's too large, too costly, and utter madness to be giving out money to such a high proportion of the working population.
  • Options
    RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737

    Pulpstar said:

    Daniel Hannan ‏@DanHannanMEP 1m
    I'm struggling to understand the Greens' obsession with 'depleting' fossil fuels. I mean, what use are they lying in the ground?

    Fossil fuels will be of no use to anyone if they're depleted!
    "We're like a cage of lab rats that have eaten all the cornflakes and discovered that you can eat the cardboard packets too. Yes, we can, but..."
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/dec/23/british-petroleum-geologist-peak-oil-break-economy-recession
  • Options
    taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    edited January 2014
    ''But much of the discussion about immigration is really a substitute for a discussion about the poor quality of too many British-born workers''.

    I'd have thought Immigration for most people is a character issue , not a race issue, or a worker issue.

    Voters don;t see why we can;t keep the nurses, entrepreneurs, teachers, footie players,manual workers, engineers etc. and not have the drug dealers, people traffickers, benefit cheats, pickpockets, health tourists, hate preachers and terrorists.

    If we could have one without the other, regardless of race or creed, I think that would satisfy the qualms of many people worried about immigration.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,090

    malcolmg said:

    Another Unionist lie nailed as reality sinks in , not be long till they admit that they desperately want a sterling zone as well. The deal will be an internal negotiated deal and UK retain all the international debt obligations.
    Scottish independence: UK debt to be guaranteed
    http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/scottish-independence-uk-debt-to-be-guaranteed-1-3266159

    Salmond has got the wrong end of the stick. Why do you parrot the deluded utterances of this economic dunce?

    Monica , LOL, read the whitepaper , this very thing is stated in there and was roundly rubbished by the unionists even yesterday , they have been hoist by their own petard.
    Patrick said:

    I think Easterross is right and MalcolmG not. The BoE / Treasury indeed want to protect UK debt interest rates by confirming they will guarantee Scottish elements of the UK's debt (actually the Telegraph is reporting they would settle coupon & principal directly and claim reimbursement from Scotland).

    This can only mean the rUK is looking after its own arse and Scottish needs will not drive decision making. Scottish 'independence' seems to mean no independence whatever when it comes to banking and currency. Deary me.

    The debt is in the UK's name and so Scotland has no obligation under law. They are protecting themselves from the shafting the market would give them with the uncertainty going forward.
    The rump UK and Scotland will need to agree a deal based on mutually agreed debts and assets which will not be based on the overall UK debt per say.
    Rump UK is responsible under law for all of the outstanding UK debt. Scotland can choose to pay some of it or not as it wishes. Dear Dear
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,071
    taffys said:

    ''But much of the discussion about immigration is really a substitute for a discussion about the poor quality of too many British-born workers''.

    I'd have thought Immigration for most people is a character issue , not a race issue, or a worker issue.

    Voters don;t see why we can;t keep the nurses, entrepreneurs, teachers, footie players,manual workers, engineers etc. and not have the drug dealers, people traffickers, benefit cheats, pickpockets, health tourists, hate preachers and terrorists.

    If we could have one without the other, regardless of race or creed, I think that would satisfy the qualms of many people worried about immigration.

    As one who has for years supported the EU, what does concern me is the apparent practice of some at least British companies of deliberately recruiting EE health professionals when there are adequate, if not surplus, qualified British staff available.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,090

    Malcolm as someone who hopes to be active in Scottish centre-right politics post Independence (assuming it happens during my lifetime) I hope you are correct but fear you will be proved wrong.

    Easterross, You can be certain they are only doing it because they are forced to. As has been previously stated , Cameron , Osborne , Darling , etc can huff and puff but when the markets slap them they act and quickly, first of a few slaps they are going to get as the polls change going forward. So much for no pre negotiation.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,090
    taffys said:

    Surely the reason ruk wants to guarantee all the debt is so that it can retain the control of interest rates and money supply without having to consult or take into account what will in effect be another country.

    Under international law it has to retain all the debt , Scotland did not sign for the debt , it si owed by the UK and the rump that is left will have to take all the UK liabilities.
  • Options

    Tories in Euro meltdown part 3

    Ken Clarke hits out at Cameron immigration claims
    Cabinet minister Ken Clarke disputes Prime Minister's claims that EU rules have led to "vast migrations" and says that foreigners make the UK "far more exciting and healthier".


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10567766/Ken-Clarke-hits-out-at-Cameron-immigration-claims.html

    With the Coalition on target to let 1 million new migrants net in over 5 years only the 'Mad Monk of Europhilia' could come out with such a demented rant

    Can I clarify. You want to make us poorer?

    Best way to make us poorer is vote Lib Dem
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    @taffys The public like hard-working immigrants, I agree. In a sense it's heartening to see the public spasm focused on Bulgarians and Romanians rather than the far greater influx of Africans that has taken place in the last couple of decades, which has passed almost unnoticed. It seems that public concerns in large part really are about work ethics and anti-social behaviour rather than racism - though you'd find plenty of hardworking Bulgarians and Romanians if you went looking for them.

    Some of the public are concerned about the impact of immigration on their personal living standards - for those in trades that are vulnerable to competition from immigrants, that's reasonable enough. Lawyers can afford to take an Olympian view, but plumbers cannot. That doesn't mean that lawyers are wrong and plumbers are right.

    And some are concerned about pressure on resources (transport, housing, schools etc). That's also a reasonable concern. But it means we need to make sure that the extra tax revenues generated by immigrants are disproportionately used to increase those resources.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,013
    Mr. G, the Scots shouldn't be too cocky. Let us assume Yes wins; if you've spent nine months crowing about not having any debts (due largely to Scottish banks and Scottish chancellors) how well-disposed would the English, Welsh and Northern Irish be towards Scotland?

    It's not smart, or polite. Bilateral trade with the UK will be very important for an independent Scotland, and pissing off 53m or so potential customers isn't good for trade.

    The announcement by the Treasury would seem to set a precedent for the privileges, responsibilities and liabilities of the UK now and post-Scottish separation, should it occur. I would imagine a typical Scot would be either unmoved or likelier to vote Yes based on the debt argument.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,983
    Socrates said:

    Tories in Euro meltdown part 3

    Ken Clarke hits out at Cameron immigration claims
    Cabinet minister Ken Clarke disputes Prime Minister's claims that EU rules have led to "vast migrations" and says that foreigners make the UK "far more exciting and healthier".


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10567766/Ken-Clarke-hits-out-at-Cameron-immigration-claims.html

    With the Coalition on target to let 1 million new migrants net in over 5 years only the 'Mad Monk of Europhilia' could come out with such a demented rant

    “The idea that you can have some fundamental debate that somehow stops all these foreigners coming here is rather typical rightwing, nationalist escapism, I think.”

    Ken Clarke has really jumped the shark. He's saying that having a debate about reducing immigration is "rightwing" and "nationalist". I expect this crap from the Labour party but not from Conservative cabinet ministers. Will Cameron have the balls to discipline him?
    I'm not sure I'd even expect this from a shadow minister, to be honest.

  • Options
    taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    It's rather bonkers having so many Britons on welfare (exclusively) whilst importing foreigners to do so many jobs.

    Mr Morris, do Brits on welfare want the jobs we are talking about?

    Its apocryphal of course, but many employers of low paid workers will tell you they get plenty of applications, but very few from Brits.


  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,071
    edited January 2014
    My understanding is that it's not just low paid workers, Mr Taffys.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,013
    Mr. Taffys, the question isn't whether they want the jobs, it's whether those paying tax want to pay people to do nothing by choice. Those seeking work (or, in cases of severe disability, unable to work) are a different kettle of monkeys.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,075
    antifrank said:

    @taffys The public like hard-working immigrants, I agree. In a sense it's heartening to see the public spasm focused on Bulgarians and Romanians rather than the far greater influx of Africans that has taken place in the last couple of decades, which has passed almost unnoticed. It seems that public concerns in large part really are about work ethics and anti-social behaviour rather than racism - though you'd find plenty of hardworking Bulgarians and Romanians if you went looking for them.

    Some of the public are concerned about the impact of immigration on their personal living standards - for those in trades that are vulnerable to competition from immigrants, that's reasonable enough. Lawyers can afford to take an Olympian view, but plumbers cannot. That doesn't mean that lawyers are wrong and plumbers are right.

    And some are concerned about pressure on resources (transport, housing, schools etc). That's also a reasonable concern. But it means we need to make sure that the extra tax revenues generated by immigrants are disproportionately used to increase those resources.

    All good stuff. However, the short-term pressure on local resources cannot quickly be fixed, even if resources are made instantly available. You cannot quickly set up a GP surgery, build new rental accommodation or a new school as people move into an area. These things tend to be rather slow-moving, although I daresay free schools may be an improvement over the LEA's glacial pace.

    It is also very UK-centric. All these productive people coming to the UK are lost to their home countries. A small amount does no harm, but large numbers must be very significant in their home countries. IMHO we too often forget that issue.
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    "If this is true, it means that lefty and greeny believers in man-made climate change are merely the Mormons of Meteorology, the Wahhabi of Warmism:"

    Titter...
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,073

    Mr. Antifrank, to a large extent I agree regarding the symptom point. It's rather bonkers having so many Britons on welfare (exclusively) whilst importing foreigners to do so many jobs.

    The welfare system itself needs massive simplification. It's too large, too costly, and utter madness to be giving out money to such a high proportion of the working population.

    Then you need to ask yourself why is it that British employers employ foreigners in the UK over British people.

    Let's ignore Mr Farage's "prejudice" for a second, as that implies that British companies are economically irrational. The answer is two-fold:

    Firstly, (and particularly at lower wage levels in London), British people simply don't apply for jobs. The tax and benefit system is such that we have unemployment of 5% in Britain, and it is not economically worthwhile for British people to apply for ceratain jobs - that is they will not earn sufficiently more than they earn on benefits. This is not the fault of the Brit - it is the fault of the tax and benefit system.

    Secondly, our education system is simply not providing enough people with maths and engineering backgrounds. When any of my various computing companies put out adverts for developers, we usually see 3-4x as many Europeans as Brits.

    Now, I know someone is going say "get a Brit and train them up". So, let me tell you what happened when we hired someone - we'll call them Jack - from prison. Jack was an entirely self taught developer. He worked with us for about a year, and - with a lot of help from the other employees - became an accomplished developer. The salary he could command went from £15k to £50k. He was no longer an ex-con, but now a developer with highly prized skills.

    Unfortunately, Jack left us for the £50k job. We took someone on, spent a huge amount of money on him, and we - undoubtedly - lost £20k or so in total, when you consider the cost of other developers' time. It's very hard to justify to your shareholders why you should bring someone in, and train them up, given their cost to you will be 2x their salary in year one, and their output will unfortunately be fairly modest early on.

    I mention this because it is important to understand that there are trade-offs with everything. There are no easy options. Small companies who train people up, and give them valuable skills, often find themselves having given the employee a free education which they'll cash in at the earliest possible opportunity. I don't know what the right answer is (not indentured servitude!), but it certainly does encourage businesses to hire people who are already trained-up.
  • Options
    NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    I see there is another Labour to UKIP councillor defection in Barking and Dagenham. Given the timing I presume it's down to deselection? We await Andrea's verdict!
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    There's also a question what is meant by an immigrant.

    Hungarian doctors are poorly paid. I'm aware that some work in Hungary during the week, then work in the NHS at weekends, flying to and from Britain every week for the weekend (earning considerably more money in Britain at the weekend than they do in Hungary during th week). I imagine this may well be true in other eastern European EU states too. Are they immigrants?
  • Options
    MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    rcs1000 said:

    Mr. Antifrank, to a large extent I agree regarding the symptom point. It's rather bonkers having so many Britons on welfare (exclusively) whilst importing foreigners to do so many jobs.

    The welfare system itself needs massive simplification. It's too large, too costly, and utter madness to be giving out money to such a high proportion of the working population.

    Then you need to ask yourself why is it that British employers employ foreigners in the UK over British people.

    Let's ignore Mr Farage's "prejudice" for a second, as that implies that British companies are economically irrational. The answer is two-fold:

    Firstly, (and particularly at lower wage levels in London), British people simply don't apply for jobs. The tax and benefit system is such that we have unemployment of 5% in Britain, and it is not economically worthwhile for British people to apply for ceratain jobs - that is they will not earn sufficiently more than they earn on benefits. This is not the fault of the Brit - it is the fault of the tax and benefit system.

    Secondly, our education system is simply not providing enough people with maths and engineering backgrounds. When any of my various computing companies put out adverts for developers, we usually see 3-4x as many Europeans as Brits.

    Now, I know someone is going say "get a Brit and train them up". So, let me tell you what happened when we hired someone - we'll call them Jack - from prison. Jack was an entirely self taught developer. He worked with us for about a year, and - with a lot of help from the other employees - became an accomplished developer. The salary he could command went from £15k to £50k. He was no longer an ex-con, but now a developer with highly prized skills.

    Unfortunately, Jack left us for the £50k job. We took someone on, spent a huge amount of money on him, and we - undoubtedly - lost £20k or so in total, when you consider the cost of other developers' time. It's very hard to justify to your shareholders why you should bring someone in, and train them up, given their cost to you will be 2x their salary in year one, and their output will unfortunately be fairly modest early on.

    I mention this because it is important to understand that there are trade-offs with everything. There are no easy options. Small companies who train people up, and give them valuable skills, often find themselves having given the employee a free education which they'll cash in at the earliest possible opportunity. I don't know what the right answer is (not indentured servitude!), but it certainly does encourage businesses to hire people who are already trained-up.
    Not indenture certainly, but a planned contract that states that a person would not leave for another job for the first full year after completing training.
  • Options
    MrsBMrsB Posts: 574
    SeanT's latest Telegraph piece, presumably penned from the safety and tranquility of Bangkok:

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100254179/what-if-man-made-climate-change-is-all-in-the-mind/

    "What if man-made climate change is all in the mind? "

    What if it isn't?
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,073
    taffys said:

    It's rather bonkers having so many Britons on welfare (exclusively) whilst importing foreigners to do so many jobs.

    Mr Morris, do Brits on welfare want the jobs we are talking about?

    Its apocryphal of course, but many employers of low paid workers will tell you they get plenty of applications, but very few from Brits.


    Can i suggest you look at my proposal from a few days ago, essentially having negative tax rates for the low paid, as a way getting British people working

  • Options
    antifrank said:

    There's also a question what is meant by an immigrant.

    Hungarian doctors are poorly paid. I'm aware that some work in Hungary during the week, then work in the NHS at weekends, flying to and from Britain every week for the weekend (earning considerably more money in Britain at the weekend than they do in Hungary during th week). I imagine this may well be true in other eastern European EU states too. Are they immigrants?

    On another forum I was called an immigrant despite patiently explaining I was born in Yorkshire and have lived in the UK all my life.

    Clearly I'm the victim of anti-Yorkshire bigotry.

  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 31,020
    edited January 2014
    malcolmg said:

    taffys said:

    Surely the reason ruk wants to guarantee all the debt is so that it can retain the control of interest rates and money supply without having to consult or take into account what will in effect be another country.

    Under international law it has to retain all the debt , Scotland did not sign for the debt , it si owed by the UK and the rump that is left will have to take all the UK liabilities.
    Simply not true. International law makes no ruling on who should shoulder what proportion of the debt.

    And if you are looking for precedent then all the examples of the post war period which saw friendly separations also saw the debt being divided.

    When Ireland left the UK in 1921, Singapore left Malaysia in 1965 and Bangladesh left Pakistan in 1971, all saw agreements with the debt being spilt amongst the two new states. The same applied during the Czech and Slovak divorce with the Czechoslovak debt being split on a two-to-one basis, with population as the benchmark.

    It took me about 30 seconds to find all that out from a simple google search. I am sure you could do the same if you were really interested in facts rather than propaganda.
  • Options
    taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    antifrank

    I don't think most people are angry with immigrants at all. In the vast majority of cases they probably think, well given your situation I'd probably do the same.

    They are angry with government.

    After all, politicians are supposed to put their voters first. But the whole story of immigration since the mid 1990s is a story of politicians putting their own voters last, and calling any objections to being put last 'racist'.


  • Options
    NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    rcs1000 said:



    Can i suggest you look at my proposal from a few days ago, essentially having negative tax rates for the low paid, as a way getting British people working

    Tax credits?
  • Options
    anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    antifrank said:


    And some are concerned about pressure on resources (transport, housing, schools etc). That's also a reasonable concern. But it means we need to make sure that the extra tax revenues generated by immigrants are disproportionately used to increase those resources.

    If immigration doesn't increase the GDP per capita, then it doesn't increase tax revenue per capita either.

  • Options
    taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Can i suggest you look at my proposal from a few days ago, essentially having negative tax rates for the low paid, as a way getting British people working

    I saw it briefly, and as you say the way welfare into work is punished by 100% effective tax rates is utterly ridiculous.
  • Options
    MrsBMrsB Posts: 574
    as for the immigration issue, I think most people react to immigration by instinct, not logic or rational consideration. It's quite simply as case of being more comfortable with people who are like them. Which is why white native-English Speaking Aussies, Americans, Canadians and Kiwis never even seem to come into the discussions, but anyone who looks or sounds different does. It's not even really racism, it's more like tribalism.
  • Options
    malcolmg said:

    taffys said:

    Surely the reason ruk wants to guarantee all the debt is so that it can retain the control of interest rates and money supply without having to consult or take into account what will in effect be another country.

    Under international law it has to retain all the debt , Scotland did not sign for the debt , it si owed by the UK and the rump that is left will have to take all the UK liabilities.
    Malcolm you're being a bit of a tit this afternoon. Neither Scotland nor the rUK incurred or owed this debt. The whole UK did/does. To suggest that Scotland as an independent nation would come into life with no debt is preposterously silly. If a new Scotland's opening gambit on the international stage was to default & bitterly antagonise England then I humbly suggest that might not end well for Scotland.
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    @anotherDave Many immigrants come for a limited number of years in their 20s and 30s, when they require few state services. The Government turns a tidy profit on such immigrants.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,983
    Neil said:

    I see there is another Labour to UKIP councillor defection in Barking and Dagenham. Given the timing I presume it's down to deselection? We await Andrea's verdict!

    I think that takes UKIP to 3 in this borough. Labour should retain the borough easily in May's elections, but I think UKIP could take some seats. Havering is the borough where I'd expect UKIP to perform really well, aided by Romford Conservatives tearing themselves to pieces.

  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,013
    Mr. 1000, I recall that post. It's quite an interesting idea, though I think the bit about paying the unemployed nothing won't fly.

    Mr. Eagles, to be fair your deranged taste in shoes is not in keeping with a typical Yorkshireman...
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,983

    malcolmg said:

    taffys said:

    Surely the reason ruk wants to guarantee all the debt is so that it can retain the control of interest rates and money supply without having to consult or take into account what will in effect be another country.

    Under international law it has to retain all the debt , Scotland did not sign for the debt , it si owed by the UK and the rump that is left will have to take all the UK liabilities.
    Simply not true. International law makes no ruling on who should shoulder what proportion of the debt.

    And if you are looking for precedent then all the examples of the post war period which saw friendly separations also saw the debt being divided.

    When Ireland left the UK in 1921, Singapore left Malaysia in 1965 and Bangladesh left Pakistan in 1971, all saw agreements with the debt being spilt amongst the two new states. The same applied during the Czech and Slovak divorce with the Czechoslovak debt being split on a two-to-one basis, with population as the benchmark.

    It took me about 30 seconds to find all that out from a simple google search. I am sure you could do the same if you were really interested in facts rather than propaganda.
    On top of which, a government which repudiated any liability for such debt would find itself frozen out of international capital markets.

  • Options
    taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    There's also a question what is meant by an immigrant.

    For me a hungarian doctor isn't even on my complaining about immigration radar screen. Or a romanian engineer, polish plumber, pakistani accountant, south african waiter.

    What is on my radar screen are criminals, ne'er do wells, welfare takers, health tourists, hate mongers, refuse to integrators, etc.
  • Options
    MaxUMaxU Posts: 87
    antifrank said:

    @taffys The public like hard-working immigrants, I agree. In a sense it's heartening to see the public spasm focused on Bulgarians and Romanians rather than the far greater influx of Africans that has taken place in the last couple of decades, which has passed almost unnoticed. It seems that public concerns in large part really are about work ethics and anti-social behaviour rather than racism - though you'd find plenty of hardworking Bulgarians and Romanians if you went looking for them.

    Some of the public are concerned about the impact of immigration on their personal living standards - for those in trades that are vulnerable to competition from immigrants, that's reasonable enough. Lawyers can afford to take an Olympian view, but plumbers cannot. That doesn't mean that lawyers are wrong and plumbers are right.

    And some are concerned about pressure on resources (transport, housing, schools etc). That's also a reasonable concern. But it means we need to make sure that the extra tax revenues generated by immigrants are disproportionately used to increase those resources.

    I am not sure that lawyers can afford to take the Olympian view, as you put it. My mind was changed about immigration when I witnessed the impact of importing antipodean lawyers into a City Law firm. It was clear to me that these antipodeans, well versed in the Common Law and therefore just as competent to practice here as the locally trained variety, were brought in by the partners because they were willing to work even longer and more unpredictable hours than the local candidates. Furthermore after about five years they return to Australasia to be replaced by more young antipodeans eager to work to the bone for five years to save some money. Another boon to the partners was that because the antipodeans were not going to stay they were not such a threat in terms of promotion. Finally their very lack of roots (and therefore a social life outside work) meant that they were yet more willing to work the very anti-social hours which City Lawyers have to for less reward.


    The net result of the antipodean lawyers, from my perspective, was a greater competition for jobs which certainly diminished working conditions and probably lowered pay as well. This introduction to the effects of immigration in the raw has changed my attitude completely about it.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,090

    Mr. G, the Scots shouldn't be too cocky. Let us assume Yes wins; if you've spent nine months crowing about not having any debts (due largely to Scottish banks and Scottish chancellors) how well-disposed would the English, Welsh and Northern Irish be towards Scotland?

    It's not smart, or polite. Bilateral trade with the UK will be very important for an independent Scotland, and pissing off 53m or so potential customers isn't good for trade.

    The announcement by the Treasury would seem to set a precedent for the privileges, responsibilities and liabilities of the UK now and post-Scottish separation, should it occur. I would imagine a typical Scot would be either unmoved or likelier to vote Yes based on the debt argument.

    MD, They have already said , even though not obliged , that they will take a fair share of both the debts and the assets of the UK. Rump UK position may be to not be fair and keep the assets and the debt as it will be to their favour. It will be down to the negotiations and all it does is clarify the position regarding the debt honestly rather than the previous dishonest unionist position.
    Nobody in Scotland is crowing , we want to make our own decisions and have our fair share of what is rightly ours, bought and paid for. We are even magnanimous enough to take our share of debt which we did not incur , almost all of it down to Labour and now Tories in Westminster.
  • Options
    felixfelix Posts: 15,125
    Sean_F said:

    malcolmg said:

    taffys said:

    Surely the reason ruk wants to guarantee all the debt is so that it can retain the control of interest rates and money supply without having to consult or take into account what will in effect be another country.

    Under international law it has to retain all the debt , Scotland did not sign for the debt , it si owed by the UK and the rump that is left will have to take all the UK liabilities.
    Simply not true. International law makes no ruling on who should shoulder what proportion of the debt.

    And if you are looking for precedent then all the examples of the post war period which saw friendly separations also saw the debt being divided.

    When Ireland left the UK in 1921, Singapore left Malaysia in 1965 and Bangladesh left Pakistan in 1971, all saw agreements with the debt being spilt amongst the two new states. The same applied during the Czech and Slovak divorce with the Czechoslovak debt being split on a two-to-one basis, with population as the benchmark.

    It took me about 30 seconds to find all that out from a simple google search. I am sure you could do the same if you were really interested in facts rather than propaganda.
    On top of which, a government which repudiated any liability for such debt would find itself frozen out of international capital markets.

    Anyone might think Scots were deliberately pandering to stereotypes about tight-fisted jocks:)
  • Options
    @MaxU - Immigration reducing lawyers' salaries? Why didn't politicians tell us this earlier if they wanted support for immigration?
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,090
    edited January 2014
    Patrick said:

    malcolmg said:

    taffys said:

    Surely the reason ruk wants to guarantee all the debt is so that it can retain the control of interest rates and money supply without having to consult or take into account what will in effect be another country.

    Under international law it has to retain all the debt , Scotland did not sign for the debt , it si owed by the UK and the rump that is left will have to take all the UK liabilities.
    Malcolm you're being a bit of a tit this afternoon. Neither Scotland nor the rUK incurred or owed this debt. The whole UK did/does. To suggest that Scotland as an independent nation would come into life with no debt is preposterously silly. If a new Scotland's opening gambit on the international stage was to default & bitterly antagonise England then I humbly suggest that might not end well for Scotland.
    Patrick perhaps some more time would have benefitted your point.
    “The international law is not clear. The Arbitration Commission on Yugoslavia declared that successor states must ‘together settle all aspects of secession by agreement’. However, when agreement cannot be reached, it appears that the presumption is that debt remains with the predecessor state.”
    Can you tell me apart from Ireland any Commonwealth country that paid debt to UK on independence, you have plenty of options.

    Also , it is only in your mind that Scotland has ever said they will default. On the contrary the position has been very clear that they will take their share of assets and debts.
  • Options
    We are even magnanimous enough to take our share of debt which we did not incur

    The debt was very largely incurred by a one-eyed Scottish man and spent on public services (which in Scotland is about 1,100 quid higher per person than England). You may not like the fact the the UK exists - but no amount of chips on your shoulder about it will:
    A. Make it any harder to distinguish you from a ray of sunshine; or
    B. Alter the fact that Scotland has a national debt
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,013
    Mr. G, well, the Coalition couldn't exactly wipe away the deficit, but I take your general point.
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Hugh said:

    Socrates said:

    Tories in Euro meltdown part 3

    Ken Clarke hits out at Cameron immigration claims
    Cabinet minister Ken Clarke disputes Prime Minister's claims that EU rules have led to "vast migrations" and says that foreigners make the UK "far more exciting and healthier".


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10567766/Ken-Clarke-hits-out-at-Cameron-immigration-claims.html

    With the Coalition on target to let 1 million new migrants net in over 5 years only the 'Mad Monk of Europhilia' could come out with such a demented rant

    “The idea that you can have some fundamental debate that somehow stops all these foreigners coming here is rather typical rightwing, nationalist escapism, I think.”

    Ken Clarke has really jumped the shark. He's saying that having a debate about reducing immigration is "rightwing" and "nationalist". I expect this crap from the Labour party but not from Conservative cabinet ministers. Will Cameron have the balls to discipline him?
    Refreshing to hear a senior Tory speaking the honest truth about immigration.

    Yes, concerns about reducing the wages of the working class, shortages of school places, delays in the NHS, rocketing property prices, home-grown terror threats, the importation of cultures of female genital mutilation and honour killings, women dressing like second class citizens - it's all just right-wing nationalism. I grew up thinking the left tried to battle the causes of low incomes, high living costs, sexism and homophobia, but apparently not.
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    malcolmg said:

    Mr. G, the Scots shouldn't be too cocky. Let us assume Yes wins; if you've spent nine months crowing about not having any debts (due largely to Scottish banks and Scottish chancellors) how well-disposed would the English, Welsh and Northern Irish be towards Scotland?

    It's not smart, or polite. Bilateral trade with the UK will be very important for an independent Scotland, and pissing off 53m or so potential customers isn't good for trade.

    The announcement by the Treasury would seem to set a precedent for the privileges, responsibilities and liabilities of the UK now and post-Scottish separation, should it occur. I would imagine a typical Scot would be either unmoved or likelier to vote Yes based on the debt argument.

    MD, They have already said , even though not obliged , that they will take a fair share of both the debts and the assets of the UK. Rump UK position may be to not be fair and keep the assets and the debt as it will be to their favour. It will be down to the negotiations and all it does is clarify the position regarding the debt honestly rather than the previous dishonest unionist position.
    Nobody in Scotland is crowing , we want to make our own decisions and have our fair share of what is rightly ours, bought and paid for. We are even magnanimous enough to take our share of debt which we did not incur , almost all of it down to Labour and now Tories in Westminster.
    That's fine - just as long as Scotland pays back the debt it did incur for the failed Darien scheme, kindly paid off by generous Englishmen, with three centuries worth of interest.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,002
    Reckon the Ballon D'Or is definitely Ronaldo's.

    Ah Well, at least the loss will be in the Victor account !
  • Options
    HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098

    antifrank said:

    There's also a question what is meant by an immigrant.

    Hungarian doctors are poorly paid. I'm aware that some work in Hungary during the week, then work in the NHS at weekends, flying to and from Britain every week for the weekend (earning considerably more money in Britain at the weekend than they do in Hungary during th week). I imagine this may well be true in other eastern European EU states too. Are they immigrants?

    On another forum I was called an immigrant despite patiently explaining I was born in Yorkshire and have lived in the UK all my life.

    Clearly I'm the victim of anti-Yorkshire bigotry.

    And on this form only the other day it was explained to you that being a Yorkshireman you weren't actually English, merely a Dane with a speech impediment. Mind you as that comment came from an Ulsterman, I thought it was a bit of a cheek.

    Be that as it may, I wonder if our local Big Issue seller pays his way in taxes. Given that he is from Albania and lives with his mates in a house in Brighton and they are bussed around the Sussex towns by their gang-master, I doubt it. Still I suppose you could say he makes Hurst High Street more exciting, though, given his chronic cough as he stands all day next to the entrance to our little Co-Op, I doubt he adds to the health of the place.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,090
    Patrick said:

    We are even magnanimous enough to take our share of debt which we did not incur

    The debt was very largely incurred by a one-eyed Scottish man and spent on public services (which in Scotland is about 1,100 quid higher per person than England). You may not like the fact the the UK exists - but no amount of chips on your shoulder about it will:
    A. Make it any harder to distinguish you from a ray of sunshine; or
    B. Alter the fact that Scotland has a national debt

    As he stated himself he was a North Britisher and he did not act for Scotland, he was acting on behalf of the UK. Obviously has upset you given you can only answer with insults , truth obviously hurts. We shall see what assets and debts we have after the negotiations.
  • Options
    anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    antifrank said:

    @anotherDave Many immigrants come for a limited number of years in their 20s and 30s, when they require few state services. The Government turns a tidy profit on such immigrants.

    "In 2012, a quarter (25.9%) of all births in England and Wales were to mothers born outside the United Kingdom. In London this figure was 57.4%. In the London Boroughs of Newham, Brent, Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea over 70% of births are to mothers born outside the UK."

    http://www.migrationwatchuk.org.uk/pdfs/BP12_3.pdf

    http://www.migrationwatchuk.org.uk/briefing-papers/
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    @MaxU - Immigration reducing lawyers' salaries? Why didn't politicians tell us this earlier if they wanted support for immigration?

    That depends which lawyers you're talking about. Some see their pay go up as a result.
  • Options
    NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    malcolmg said:

    We shall see what assets and debts we have after the negotiations.

    Or not in the event of a 'no' vote and no negotiations.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,789
    The real significance of today's announcement is that investors rightly believe that Scotland's debt position would be weaker than that of the UK - and that is nothing for the SNP to celebrate.

    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/01/why-snp-shouldnt-be-celebrating-uks-pledge-guarantee-scotlands-debt
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,090
    Socrates said:

    malcolmg said:

    Mr. G, the Scots shouldn't be too cocky. Let us assume Yes wins; if you've spent nine months crowing about not having any debts (due largely to Scottish banks and Scottish chancellors) how well-disposed would the English, Welsh and Northern Irish be towards Scotland?

    It's not smart, or polite. Bilateral trade with the UK will be very important for an independent Scotland, and pissing off 53m or so potential customers isn't good for trade.

    The announcement by the Treasury would seem to set a precedent for the privileges, responsibilities and liabilities of the UK now and post-Scottish separation, should it occur. I would imagine a typical Scot would be either unmoved or likelier to vote Yes based on the debt argument.

    MD, They have already said , even though not obliged , that they will take a fair share of both the debts and the assets of the UK. Rump UK position may be to not be fair and keep the assets and the debt as it will be to their favour. It will be down to the negotiations and all it does is clarify the position regarding the debt honestly rather than the previous dishonest unionist position.
    Nobody in Scotland is crowing , we want to make our own decisions and have our fair share of what is rightly ours, bought and paid for. We are even magnanimous enough to take our share of debt which we did not incur , almost all of it down to Labour and now Tories in Westminster.
    That's fine - just as long as Scotland pays back the debt it did incur for the failed Darien scheme, kindly paid off by generous Englishmen, with three centuries worth of interest.
    When a numpty brings up that old crap you know they are a real loser.
  • Options
    NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    edited January 2014

    The real significance of today's announcement is that investors rightly believe that Scotland's debt position would be weaker than that of the UK - and that is nothing for the SNP to celebrate.

    That's certainly what HMT want Scottish voters to think and why they leaked this to anyone and everyone. Whether it has the impact on Scottish voters that they would like is another issue.
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    The real significance of today's announcement is that investors rightly believe that Scotland's debt position would be weaker than that of the UK - and that is nothing for the SNP to celebrate.

    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/01/why-snp-shouldnt-be-celebrating-uks-pledge-guarantee-scotlands-debt

    Quite - today's announcement was to shore up the pound to ensure it won't be damaged by SNP loony behaviour between now and Sept.




  • Options
    RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    For those interested in our energy future, or lack thereof, may I recommend the recent special edition of the Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society...
    http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/372/2006.toc

    For those who believe fracking, or shale-oil, tarsands, etc are the answer, the article on EROI is sobering.

    "Murphy & Hall examined the relation between EROI, oil price and economic growth over
    the past 40 years and found that economic growth occurred during periods that combined low oil prices with an increasing oil supply. They also found that high oil prices led to an increase in energy expenditures as a share of GDP, which has led historically to recessions. Lastly, they found that oil prices and EROI are inversely related, which implies that increasing the oil supply by exploiting unconventional and hence lower EROI sources of oil would require high oil prices. This created what Murphy & Hall called the ‘economic growth paradox: increasing the oil supply to support economic growth will require high oil prices that will undermine that economic growth’"


    "Transitioning to lower EROI energy sources has a number of implications for global society. First, it will reallocate energy that was previously destined for society towards the energy industry alone. This will, over the long run, lower the net energy available to society, creating significant headwinds for economic growth. Secondly, transitioning to lower EROI oil means that the price of oil will remain high compared to the past, which will also place contractionary pressure on the economy. Third, as we try to increase oil supplies from unconventional sources, we will accelerate the resource acquisition rate, and therefore the degradation of our natural environment..."
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    antifrank said:

    @anotherDave Many immigrants come for a limited number of years in their 20s and 30s, when they require few state services. The Government turns a tidy profit on such immigrants.

    "In 2012, a quarter (25.9%) of all births in England and Wales were to mothers born outside the United Kingdom. In London this figure was 57.4%. In the London Boroughs of Newham, Brent, Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea over 70% of births are to mothers born outside the UK."

    http://www.migrationwatchuk.org.uk/pdfs/BP12_3.pdf

    http://www.migrationwatchuk.org.uk/briefing-papers/
    Small change:

    http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/03/nhs-overwhelmed-long-term-medical-conditions

    "Looking after the 15.4 million people in England with at least one long-term condition already takes up 70% of the NHS's £110bn budget"

    It's the elderly who comprise most of the costs of the NHS.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,013
    Mr. Llama, you bounder! Yorkshire's the beating heart of England, and the mighty Yorkshiremen that stride the moors are descendents of Saxons and ferocious Vikings, and there's nothing wrong with that.
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    IDS on "Benefits Street"

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/isabel-hardman/2014/01/iain-duncan-smith-people-are-shocked-by-benefits-street-and-labour-will-thank-us-for-welfare-reform/

    Most interesting

    "Duncan Smith also had the opportunity to drop hints about the most popular welfare reform this government has ever touched, the £26,000 benefit cap. He told Andrew Bridgen, who had asked for the cap to be lowered, that it was ‘under review’."
  • Options
    antifrank said:

    That depends which lawyers you're talking about. Some see their pay go up as a result.

    Good point!
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,284
    edited January 2014
    Patrick said:

    the fact that Scotland has a national debt

    Really? Can you tell me how much it is, and how much therefore is 'England's' national debt?

  • Options
    anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    antifrank said:

    antifrank said:

    @anotherDave Many immigrants come for a limited number of years in their 20s and 30s, when they require few state services. The Government turns a tidy profit on such immigrants.

    "In 2012, a quarter (25.9%) of all births in England and Wales were to mothers born outside the United Kingdom. In London this figure was 57.4%. In the London Boroughs of Newham, Brent, Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea over 70% of births are to mothers born outside the UK."

    http://www.migrationwatchuk.org.uk/pdfs/BP12_3.pdf

    http://www.migrationwatchuk.org.uk/briefing-papers/
    Small change:

    http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/03/nhs-overwhelmed-long-term-medical-conditions

    "Looking after the 15.4 million people in England with at least one long-term condition already takes up 70% of the NHS's £110bn budget"

    It's the elderly who comprise most of the costs of the NHS.
    Your position was that immigrants were not a drain on state services. That is obviously not the case.
This discussion has been closed.