SO The lefties on here keep saying 2020 is the big opportunity to win..they all neglect to say that Corbyn will be gone..he may not be gone ..therefore they will not win..
Not hard to beat the Tories record in Scotland , anyone can forecast that they are losers, will be losers again and again and again.
And yet, I forecast they would win, and they did. And so did I.
Every one of my SP16 bets came in.
Funny that.
Bizarre idea on winning, you winning a few bets is not a Tory victory. They were very very also rans, a couple of extra seats due to circumstances of Labour , Greens putting a spoiler up in Ruthie's seat etc.
@tamcohen: Jacob Rees-Mogg: 'What Boris said was absolutely true...but instead of doing it by force, EU doing it by stealth.' #Peston
Tories are going at each other with hammer and tongs. Apparently, peace will break out on June 24th.
Pigs will fly before then.
In fairness though, I've not seen as many people claiming all will be well then lately. It's been a lot more 'Cameron is finished even if remain wins' which is an ackowledgement there will not be peace.
I think John Major's speech where he said: "As the Leave arguments implode one by one, some of the Brexit leaders morph into UKIP, and turn to their default position - immigration" was very apposite and powerful.
I am beginning to hope for a 50.5-49.5 REMAIN result. 30 or more MPs could get out.
I know, she actually thought she would win a constituency seat too, and that the Tories might climb to second place, how stupid was that?
Malky has an enviable record.
Almost every time he calls Tories stupid, which is almost every time he posts, turns out they are right, and he is a turnip.
It's a gift.
If only he was that good at picking the horses...
Not hard to beat the Tories record in Scotland , anyone can forecast that they are losers, will be losers again and again and again.
If only the Tories were good at picking politician's rather than donkeys. Deluded that you think being a DISTANT loser getting losers seats and having 1 MP in Westminster is actually great, high aspirations indeed. The result of all that is that they desperately want to promote sectarianism, dear dear.
You've got to be patient with adherents of the Ruth for Second Best party. They're currently working out how they managed to abstain in the Holyrood Named Person vote, run (successfully by their own account) a Named Person scheme for 5 years in a Tory led council and campaign on repealing the 'unworkable legislation' that 'could end in tragedy'. Extra reverse gears are being fitted to ferrets as I type.
Politically, immigration is the absolute killer for Remain and is why Leave is likely to win. But the fact is that this government - which you support - has built its fiscal and economic policy on high levels of ongoing immigration. If you accept that the UK population is going to grow by five million without a single extra immigrant over the coming years and that most of that growth is going to be attributable to a rising elderly population, how do you propose rebalancing the economy to support the additional infrastructure spend we are going to need and to create the resources necessary to look after that elderly population?
It is not going to be easy. We need to address the underlying problems I set out down thread and which I am conscious that you too have pointed out on many occasions. We need to improve training of the existing workforce by making it less easy to hire tradesmen and other skilled workers off the shelf, we need to sort out our tertiary education systems, particularly at everything below the elite level, we need to train our management to focus beyond the next quarter and invest accordingly and we need to find a means of living within our tax base whilst still providing for the needy in society. Hugely difficult but importing more and more people as a short term fix to some of these issues is not the answer.
And I for one fully accept that anyone who thinks we can make these necessary changes without years of sub optimal growth is just kidding themselves. Every bit as much as those who claim the sticking plaster of another 5m people is going to be fine are.
Fair enough - your honesty does you credit. With regard to EU immigration, I am not sure this has played out completely. If you look at previous experiences in other countries that have had high levels of immigration from southern Europe in the past (Spain, Portugal and Italy to Germany, for example), what you see is that a lot of immigrants do return home - either after a short period of time or when they get older and can retire. Unless you have family here and feel completely integrated (and some will, of course) why would you retire in the UK when you can head back to Spain, Portugal, Italy, France etc? Native born Brits do it in large numbers, so why wouldn't those actually born in these places? Those that do not go home are the ones who would be going back to far less hospitable environments - these are much more likely to be immigrants from outside the EU. A country that attracts younger people and loses older people is a country that is going to do pretty well for itself.
Its curious that those predicting economic doom following Brexit have so little concern about the current economic problems Britain is in.
Such as the current account being at a record high, the savings ration being at a record low, stagnant productivity and real wages, falling home ownership, an imminent fourth manufacturing recession since 2011 and George Osborne borrowing £172bn more than he said he would.
SO The lefties on here keep saying 2020 is the big opportunity to win..they all neglect to say that Corbyn will be gone..he may not be gone ..therefore they will not win..
Mr. Observer, some good things (raising the pension age) are already being done. A focus on public health, though easier to say than achieve, would help keep people fit and active, able to work and less likely to cost the NHS money through lifestyle-inflicted maladies.
We should also bear in mind my generation and the one following it will, on average, live shorter lives due to sedentary lifestyles (not innocent of that myself...) and cake addictions (I am innocent of this, though).
Wish I had better answers, but doing something we know won't work [as well as damaging social cohesion, amongst other things] is worse than doing nothing.
The maths doesn't work under your scheme - either these immigrants are going to return home (presumably, if they are EU) with some portable pension rights from the UK government. Alternatively they will stay and require additional people in future to fund them.+ basis...
Very little is paid now-a-days from taxation. The state pension is now very small compared to thirty years ago, Most private sector pension schemes are now "money purchase" as opposed to "final salary".
The 2015/16 State pension is estimated to be costing around £90 billion. That is around 12% of total government expenditure. I would hardly say that was 'very little'.
Yes. That is historical legacy. As a percent of GDP that will gradually fall. Of course, if GDP itself does not increase............... [ the last 6 years example ]
Serious question, not at all being difficult. But why should it fall as a percentage of GDP? Our GDP is not expected to rise massively any time soon but our pension age population is rising even taking into account the changes to make people wait longer before they retire (which I understand and agree with).
I don't see how anyone can say with any confidence that the pensions burden on the State is going to reduce significantly in the foreseeable future.
[Assuming long term GDP growth trend ], the percentage will fall as newer pensioners basic pension is a lot less compared to thirty years ago, say. Triple lock or not.
Our governments encouraged people to opt out of SERPS [ remember ? ]. It was a neon light signal to better provide for yourselves.
The basic state pension now-a-days just keeps your head above water. It is the supplementary pension that gives people comfort. Very little is paid by the state for that.
Not for long.
That pension lifeboat is filling with ever more passengers (latest boarders - BHS pensioners).
Considering the abysmal rates for annuities, people are being forced into benefits in their retirement.
I see very little deep understanding of retirement provision in your posts or of the issues involved.
I know, she actually thought she would win a constituency seat too, and that the Tories might climb to second place, how stupid was that?
Malky has an enviable record.
Almost every time he calls Tories stupid, which is almost every time he posts, turns out they are right, and he is a turnip.
It's a gift.
If only he was that good at picking the horses...
Not hard to beat the Tories record in Scotland , anyone can forecast that they are losers, will be losers again and again and again.
If only the Tories were good at picking politician's rather than donkeys. Deluded that you think being a DISTANT loser getting losers seats and having 1 MP in Westminster is actually great, high aspirations indeed. The result of all that is that they desperately want to promote sectarianism, dear dear.
I really do not udnerstand this tactic of some of deriding the Tory recovery in Scotland, in this particular manner. Yes it was a distant second, yes the SNP are hugely dominant, yes there is no guarantee it will be sustained or extend to MP recovery, and yes they used to be stronger still.
But it was still a major improvement on where they had been, and an improvement that people who predicted it this time (as opposed to in jest all the time, and I did not predict it) were repeatedly laughed at and bluntly called idiots.
There is no contradiction between them having achieved something and acknowledging they are still a long way back from the dominant force, and those who said they wouldn't even achieve this (and more, that it was preposterous and idiotic to suggest it) aren't in much of a position to use exactly the same tone to dismiss them now. Give it a month or do at least, when the shines of relative triumph, and yes that this is a relative triumph is sad for them but true, wears off.
And now to enjoy some sun.
It was down to a peculiar set of circumstances and how the voting system works. They are still going nowhere and are hated throughout the country. Now we see their great plan is to support sectarianism and allow the bigots to return to their hatred and bile. It is still the same bunch of donkeys with assorted rightwing dummies added, they are going nowhere. Their loaner votes from Labour will melt away soon.
Boris' claim is the ultimate aim is identical, albeit by different means. It appears people trust him, perhaps when people have stopped jumping up and down they'll realise he was right.
The ultimate aim of the EU is the extermination of the Jewish race?
Not sure people will "realise he was right"...
A more crass and deceitful statement I have yet to read.
Remind me what happened the last time a Conservative classics scholar with Prime Ministerial ambitions used this kind of overblown metaphor in a speech.
Mr. Observer, some good things (raising the pension age) are already being done. A focus on public health, though easier to say than achieve, would help keep people fit and active, able to work and less likely to cost the NHS money through lifestyle-inflicted maladies.
We should also bear in mind my generation and the one following it will, on average, live shorter lives due to sedentary lifestyles (not innocent of that myself...) and cake addictions (I am innocent of this, though).
Wish I had better answers, but doing something we know won't work [as well as damaging social cohesion, amongst other things] is worse than doing nothing.
See the orgy of high-rise building in London as an example of that.
Immigration of working age people is not a Ponzi scheme. The problem of an ageng population with increasing dependency ratio is most acute over the next 25 years as the baby-boomers of the 1945-65 years age. The drop in fertility rates in the late sixties to eighties means the age structure of the population then smooths out.
If you look at the ONS projections for the change in the age structure of the population between now and 2039, the change with the population to is substantially in the elderly and very elderly. The working age population hardly budges, and if you look at table 4 the number of children remains static too.
These are UK figures, but as most population growth is in England rather than in the other home nations we will see different effects in different parts of the country. Oversubscribed schools in Leicester will be balanced by schools closing in Wales through lack of pupils for example.
To date we have offset the increase in the number of retired and elderly with additional people of working age by immigration. But such a policy has many of the aspects of a Ponzi scheme to me: new entrants pay out the old provided there are enough new entrants to do so. Those figures project that by 2039 there will be another 10m people living in Britain, roughly another London. Do we really want to have policies that are going to add to that problem or policies that are going to reduce it?
The figures seem to indicate that EU immigrants are extremely mobile. That is exactly what we need. Young people coming here for a year or two and then heading off again, while we get to export a lot of our non-productive elderly people to the south.
We still have to pay pensions to those elderly and be re-charged for their healthcare.
Furthermore, the immigrants will be accruing pension benefits.
And we won't be getting VAT back when they spend those pensions.
Why do you think it is possible to simply export our problems away rather than confront them?
This attitude is becoming more apparent in the Leave campaign and is starting to kill you.
There are a lot of the costs associated with the elderly that are not paid if they move to another country and if they go to somewhere warmer they are less of a cost anyway. But I am glad that you accept that Brexit will lead to higher taxes and lower public spending. What puzzles me is why Leave does not make this clear, but that it is a price worth paying.
@tamcohen: Jacob Rees-Mogg: 'What Boris said was absolutely true...but instead of doing it by force, EU doing it by stealth.' #Peston
Bloody hell. So are there secret gas chambers and ovens out there that we do not know about?
I like JR-M (a lot more than I like Boris) but I really can't understand why he is pushing this line.
For the vast majority of the British public the name Hitler means genocide and gas chambers. If you want to make a claim about European domination then there are lots of other plausible examples without the emotive connotations of Nazism. Invoking Hitler is a lazy, ill informed route to take. It is Leave doing exactly what Remain have been doing and making ludicrous claims.
Boris' claim is the ultimate aim is identical, albeit by different means. It appears people trust him, perhaps when people have stopped jumping up and down they'll realise he was right.
Perhaps when my fellow leavers stop jumping up and down to defend him, they will realise that that is not even the point. Ken Livingstone thought he was right too, but even if he had been, he should have known and Boris should have known that bringing up hitler rarely helps, it only distracts from the point. Instead of talking about how the eu wants to be a superstate, which it does, people will see hitler and wonder how else Boris thinks the Euis like him. (And no, I don't think most normal people will notice)
Since his point didn't need to bring in hitler, he shouldn't have done so. End of, he was being an idiot.
Furthermore, this referendum has revealed both campaigns to be whiny idiots. Remain brief about war and complain when that is the headline and people miss the nuance. Boris brings up hitler and now leave are complaining he didn't mean in other ways.
In both cases extreme points were seized upon by the opposition. That's politics, stop complaining it happens. Ultimately, both could have avoided it by being less stupid.
We need to consider time frames here. How long after a vote to leave would it take to actually leave? I suspect what TSE is really saying is that a recession shortly after a vote to leave could be blamed on voting to leave.
Financially this country is completely f****** whether we stay in the EU or not. At some point our government will have to make some very tough decisions. While I'm happy to see those decisions taken outside the EU - and take any collateral criticism from the told you so brigade - should we vote to stay in, one silver lining will be watching Cameron and Osborne deal with the faltering economy.
It won't Osborne's problem after July....
I don't envy whoever follows Osborne. I get that he inherited a pretty dire situation from Labour, bur Osborne's latest budget was a disgrace. I hope whoever takes over from him in June - should that happen - gets on with the business of sorting out the public finances rather than buying off the votes of backbenchers.
I'd forgotten all about the budget.
That was full of wheezes that have fallen apart pretty quickly.
It was another "game-changer" for Remain that's has turned out to be a damp squib.
Yes, all these game changers from Osborne running the REMAIN campaign. Just like all those relaunches of Brown as PM we used to watch.....
Oh my, I'd forgotten about Gordon's relaunches - they were brilliantly awful.
One poster on here labelled our Chancellor as Osbrown and it is a label that he has grown into. Just look at the REMAIN campaign led by Osborne. A series of "game changing" announcements with SFA improvement for REMAIN.
@tamcohen: Jacob Rees-Mogg: 'What Boris said was absolutely true...but instead of doing it by force, EU doing it by stealth.' #Peston
Bloody hell. So are there secret gas chambers and ovens out there that we do not know about?
I like JR-M (a lot more than I like Boris) but I really can't understand why he is pushing this line.
For the vast majority of the British public the name Hitler means genocide and gas chambers. If you want to make a claim about European domination then there are lots of other plausible examples without the emotive connotations of Nazism. Invoking Hitler is a lazy, ill informed route to take. It is Leave doing exactly what Remain have been doing and making ludicrous claims.
On a practical level, Boris's anti-German rhetoric is going to prove problematic post-Brexit - especially if he does become PM. He might be able to smile and say something self-deprecating to friendly interviewers here to get himself out of trouble, but I am not sure that works around a negotiating table.
I know, she actually thought she would win a constituency seat too, and that the Tories might climb to second place, how stupid was that?
Malky has an enviable record.
Almost every time he calls Tories stupid, which is almost every time he posts, turns out they are right, and he is a turnip.
It's a gift.
If only he was that good at picking the horses...
Not hard to beat the Tories record in Scotland , anyone can forecast that they are losers, will be losers again and again and again.
If only the Tories were good at picking politician's rather than donkeys. Deluded that you think being a DISTANT loser getting losers seats and having 1 MP in Westminster is actually great, high aspirations indeed. The result of all that is that they desperately want to promote sectarianism, dear dear.
I really do not udnerstand this tactic of some of deriding the Tory recovery in Scotland, in this particular manner. Yes it was a distant second, yes the SNP are hugely dominant, yes there is no guarantee it will be sustained or extend to MP recovery, and yes they used to be stronger still.
But it was still a major improvement on where they had been, and an improvement that people who predicted it this time (as opposed to in jest all the time, and I did not predict it) were repeatedly laughed at and bluntly called idiots.
There is no contradiction between them having achieved something and acknowledging they are still a long way back from the dominant force, and those who said they wouldn't even achieve this (and more, that it was preposterous and idiotic to suggest it) aren't in much of a position to use exactly the same tone to dismiss them now. Give it a month or do at least, when the shines of relative triumph, and yes that this is a relative triumph is sad for them but true, wears off.
And now to enjoy some sun.
It was down to a peculiar set of circumstances and how the voting system works. They are still going nowhere and are hated throughout the country. Now we see their great plan is to support sectarianism and allow the bigots to return to their hatred and bile. It is still the same bunch of donkeys with assorted rightwing dummies added, they are going nowhere. Their loaner votes from Labour will melt away soon.
Which is why they came second.....
Of course in SNP land the Police are better employed arresting Nazi dogs and football supporters while leaving people to die at the side of the road....
I know, she actually thought she would win a constituency seat too, and that the Tories might climb to second place, how stupid was that?
Malky has an enviable record.
Almost every time he calls Tories stupid, which is almost every time he posts, turns out they are right, and he is a turnip.
It's a gift.
If only he was that good at picking the horses...
Not hard to beat the Tories record in Scotland , anyone can forecast that they are losers, will be losers again and again and again.
If only the Tories were good at picking politician's rather than donkeys. Deluded that you think being a DISTANT loser getting losers seats and having 1 MP in Westminster is actually great, high aspirations indeed. The result of all that is that they desperately want to promote sectarianism, dear dear.
I really do not udnerstand this tactic of some of deriding the Tory recovery in Scotland, in this particular manner. Yes it was a distant second, yes the SNP are hugely dominant, yes there is no guarantee it will be sustained or extend to MP recovery, and yes they used to be stronger still.
But it was still a major improvement on where they had been, and an improvement that people who predicted it this time (as opposed to in jest all the time, and I did not predict it) were repeatedly laughed at and bluntly called idiots.
There is no contradiction between them having achieved something and acknowledging they are still a long way back from the dominant force, and those who said they wouldn't even achieve this (and more, that it was preposterous and idiotic to suggest it) aren't in much of a position to use exactly the same tone to dismiss them now. Give it a month or do at least, when the shines of relative triumph, and yes that this is a relative triumph is sad for them but true, wears off.
And now to enjoy some sun.
It was down to a peculiar set of circumstances and how the voting system works. They are still going nowhere and are hated throughout the country. Now we see their great plan is to support sectarianism and allow the bigots to return to their hatred and bile. It is still the same bunch of donkeys with assorted rightwing dummies added, they are going nowhere. Their loaner votes from Labour will melt away soon.
See, that's a much more reasonable take on the same point.
Not hard to beat the Tories record in Scotland , anyone can forecast that they are losers, will be losers again and again and again.
And yet, I forecast they would win, and they did. And so did I.
Every one of my SP16 bets came in.
Funny that.
Can you link to your ante-05/05/16 posts that stated that the Ruth for Second Best party would come ahead of SLab, and associated recommended bets? Thanks.
SO You are correct . .they never say that...they completely ignore the fact that in order to win.. Corbyn and his ilk will have to go...and there is no mechanism for that .. ergo..it is never mentioned..all we hear is blind optimism..
Its curious that those predicting economic doom following Brexit have so little concern about the current economic problems Britain is in.
Such as the current account being at a record high, the savings ration being at a record low, stagnant productivity and real wages, falling home ownership, an imminent fourth manufacturing recession since 2011 and George Osborne borrowing £172bn more than he said he would.
Yep, we have a lot of problems already. Not sure how adding to them helps though.
"The Out side has taken such a pummelling on the economy that, if this were a boxing match, the referee would be stepping in to stop the fight. When anyone dares to express an opinion about the hazards of Brexit, the Outers now routinely wail that it is somehow “unfair” or “bullying” or even a “conspiracy”. That suggests that some of them wish that there really was a referee who could intervene to spare them any more punches."
Did you miss the poll of polls you deluded freak?
50/50
At what point will the flailing REMAINIACS admit that all is not going quite to plan?
Back from hour's walk and catching up.
SeanT please do not call Meeks a freak... it may give him and the other *&%!!* REMAINers on here the go ahead to hurl abuse on all LEAVErs, who are trying and have a polite discussion.
Of course it is for PB moderators to intervene and deal with abuse but one of them would be looking at a mirror and banning themselves!
@tamcohen: Jacob Rees-Mogg: 'What Boris said was absolutely true...but instead of doing it by force, EU doing it by stealth.' #Peston
Bloody hell. So are there secret gas chambers and ovens out there that we do not know about?
I like JR-M (a lot more than I like Boris) but I really can't understand why he is pushing this line.
For the vast majority of the British public the name Hitler means genocide and gas chambers. If you want to make a claim about European domination then there are lots of other plausible examples without the emotive connotations of Nazism. Invoking Hitler is a lazy, ill informed route to take. It is Leave doing exactly what Remain have been doing and making ludicrous claims.
Yes, that hits the nail on the head. As with Livingstone (who was admittedly much more offensive) drawing analogies with Hitler that don't relate to genocide suggest a need for insensitive sensationalism. It's like drawing an analogy to Anders Breivik that focuses on his skill at computer games (apparently he is quite good at them). The primary problem about Hitler in this context was not whether he quite liked the idea of European integration (though I don't recall his making a big theme of it per se), but that his idea of European integration was that he'd run it and start by murdering a large proportion of the population.
Playing back Marr show and Andrea Leadsom informed , straightforward and answered all questions. Marr looked unusually well briefed probably from REMAIN Govt.
Possibly the same govt person who got the message to Marr during the newspaper chat that the PM "had not warned of WWIII". An extraordinary concession by Marr.
Hang on, how will it lead to higher taxes and less public spending?
Reducing immigration will reduce the number of people paying tax at a time when the population is growing older and more people are moving into retirement.
The full letter to the Sunday Times on Cameron's pitiful negotiations with the Brussels and how we have all been conned by him.
DAVID CAMERON negotiated an EU-UK agreement that in the circumstances was probably the best deal he could secure. But its limitations should send a warning about the type of EU that Britons would be voting to remain part of. The deal does not go far beyond existing British opt-outs and vague commitments. Take the declaration that the UK is not committed to ever-closer union. There is not a single important judgment where the European Court of Justice has relied on this verbal formula as the exclusive legal basis for driving EU integration. There is nothing in this deal that protects the UK from Luxembourg’s future judicial activism.
Moreover, the supposed “red card” whereby national parliaments can veto EU legislation envisages impractical circumstances where the opposition parties in 16 countries simultaneously stage a successful rebellion against their majority governments. The “emergency brake” on welfare benefits by EU migrants will, of course, achieve very limited savings because the vast majority of such migrants are working. The same cannot always be said for the million-plus asylum seekers who arrived in Germany last year. But once these immigrants are naturalised in Germany (and elsewhere) there is nothing to prevent them from exercising their right to free movement and cross the Channel legally. The UK may not be part of the EU’s common asylum policy, but no country will be able to escape its consequences.
We believe the EU needs the UK and its voice of reason, all the more at a time when almost everyone appears to have quit reason. Whether Britain needs the EU just as much is a different question entirely, and one for the people to resolve. But this is not a choice between change and no change. Rather, it is a choice between disembarking from the EU train now, or staying on as it hurtles towards further political integration.
Most reform-minded Germans hope Britain stays in the EU. But EU reform is a losing battle and many of us envy the British for having this debate and this referendum. And the chance to disembark from an EU project whose integration now threatens to undermine, rather than uphold, the liberty and prosperity of our continent.
Gunnar Beck, (Barrister in EU law), London; Professors Charles Blankart, Berlin, Gerd Habermann, Potsdam University, Dietrich Murswiek, Freiburg University, Alfred Schüller, Marburg University, Joachim Starbatty (MEP), Tübingen University, Roland Vaubel, Mannheim University; HansOlaf Henkel, MEP and former president of the German Federation of Industry
To date we have offset the increase in the number of retired and elderly with additional people of working age by immigration. But such a policy has many of the aspects of a Ponzi scheme to me: new entrants pay out the old provided there are enough new entrants to do so. Those figures project that by 2039 there will be another 10m people living in Britain, roughly another London. Do we really want to have policies that are going to add to that problem or policies that are going to reduce it?
The figures seem to indicate that EU immigrants are extremely mobile. That is exactly what we need. Young people coming here for a year or two and then heading off again, while we get to export a lot of our non-productive elderly people to the south.
We still have to pay pensions to those elderly and be re-charged for their healthcare.
Furthermore, the immigrants will be accruing pension benefits.
And we won't be getting VAT back when they spend those pensions.
Why do you think it is possible to simply export our problems away rather than confront them?
This attitude is becoming more apparent in the Leave campaign and is starting to kill you.
There are a lot of the costs associated with the elderly that are not paid if they move to another country and if they go to somewhere warmer they are less of a cost anyway. But I am glad that you accept that Brexit will lead to higher taxes and lower public spending. What puzzles me is why Leave does not make this clear, but that it is a price worth paying.
Where did I accept the higher taxes/lower public spending assertion?
Playing back Marr show and Andrea Leadsom informed , straightforward and answered all questions. Marr looked unusually well briefed probably from REMAIN Govt.
Possibly the same govt person who got the message to Marr during the newspaper chat that the PM "had not warned of WWIII". An extraordinary concession by Marr.
Yep - she did answer all the questions. Not very well though. I particularly enjoyed her trying to explain why the IMF, Barak Obama and Mark Carney were credible sources when she cited them, but not when others did.
To date we have offset the increase in the number of retired and elderly with additional people of working age by immigration. But such a policy has many of the aspects of a Ponzi scheme to me: new entrants pay out the old provided there are enough new entrants to do so. Those figures project that by 2039 there will be another 10m people living in Britain, roughly another London. Do we really want to have policies that are going to add to that problem or policies that are going to reduce it?
The figures seem to indicate that EU immigrants are extremely mobile. That is exactly what we need. Young people coming here for a year or two and then heading off again, while we get to export a lot of our non-productive elderly people to the south.
We still have to pay pensions to those elderly and be re-charged for their healthcare.
Furthermore, the immigrants will be accruing pension benefits.
And we won't be getting VAT back when they spend those pensions.
Why do you think it is possible to simply export our problems away rather than confront them?
This attitude is becoming more apparent in the Leave campaign and is starting to kill you.
There are a lot of the costs associated with the elderly that are not paid if they move to another country and if they go to somewhere warmer they are less of a cost anyway. But I am glad that you accept that Brexit will lead to higher taxes and lower public spending. What puzzles me is why Leave does not make this clear, but that it is a price worth paying.
Where did I accept the higher taxes/lower public spending assertion?
And why is either bad/good in and of themselves?
You stated that you supported both to make up for the tax take shortfall that would come with a post-Brexit fall in immigration.
We need to consider time frames here. How long after a vote to leave would it take to actually leave? I suspect what TSE is really saying is that a recession shortly after a vote to leave could be blamed on voting to leave.
Financially this country is completely f****** whether we stay in the EU or not. At some point our government will have to make some very tough decisions. While I'm happy to see those decisions taken outside the EU - and take any collateral criticism from the told you so brigade - should we vote to stay in, one silver lining will be watching Cameron and Osborne deal with the faltering economy.
It won't Osborne's problem after July....
I don't envy whoever follows Osborne. I get that he inherited a pretty dire situation from Labour, bur Osborne's latest budget was a disgrace. I hope whoever takes over from him in June - should that happen - gets on with the business of sorting out the public finances rather than buying off the votes of backbenchers.
I'd forgotten all about the budget.
That was full of wheezes that have fallen apart pretty quickly.
It was another "game-changer" for Remain that's has turned out to be a damp squib.
Yes, all these game changers from Osborne running the REMAIN campaign. Just like all those relaunches of Brown as PM we used to watch.....
Oh my, I'd forgotten about Gordon's relaunches - they were brilliantly awful.
One poster on here labelled our Chancellor as Osbrown and it is a label that he has grown into. Just look at the REMAIN campaign led by Osborne. A series of "game changing" announcements with SFA improvement for REMAIN.
I think it was @Alanbrooke or @another_richard years ago. I used to think it was OTT, now I'm finding myself in agreement.
Mr. Observer, some good things (raising the pension age) are already being done. A focus on public health, though easier to say than achieve, would help keep people fit and active, able to work and less likely to cost the NHS money through lifestyle-inflicted maladies.
We should also bear in mind my generation and the one following it will, on average, live shorter lives due to sedentary lifestyles (not innocent of that myself...) and cake addictions (I am innocent of this, though).
Wish I had better answers, but doing something we know won't work [as well as damaging social cohesion, amongst other things] is worse than doing nothing.
Point of order, Mr. Dancer, people who lead impeccably healthy lives are the ones that fill the nursing homes and live on for years requiring very expensive health and social care. It is people living on and on who are breaking the NHS, not those with lifestyle maladies.
If HMG want to sort out the so-called demographic time bomb they would do better to reduce the taxes and duties payable on booze and fags and, possibly, even make make some recreational narcotics available on the NHS for the over 60s.
Leadsom made the very effective point that the role of the Governor of the Bank of England was to encourage stability not to promote instability through what the say. Marr did not put that point to Carney.
Carney's position is becoming more untenable after the referendum. Somewhat similar to Osborne and Cameron. A form of self harming behaviour.
A decade ago, a demand number below 25GW was absolutely unheard of, and pretty much every day saw peak demand exceed 40GW. The National Grid forecast that by 2018, we'd see daily demand peaking in the 45GW range.
Yet right now, electricity demand is sub 25GW, and we've barely poked about 30GW in the last 24 hours.
The impact of energy efficiency measures - and the effect of higher electricity prices - has had a staggering effect of consumption.
I've been one of the biggest bears on electricity demand around, and I've been wildly over-optimistic.
Is this not just a consequence of turning off most of our heavy industry?
Not really: If you look at electricity consumption trends since 2005, you see big declines in lighting (CFLs, LEDs), household (better insulation, massively more efficient appliances), and even in commercial (LCD screens rather than CRTs, laptops rather than desktops).
The decline in industrial usage has lagged other sectors.
Its curious that those predicting economic doom following Brexit have so little concern about the current economic problems Britain is in.
Such as the current account being at a record high, the savings ration being at a record low, stagnant productivity and real wages, falling home ownership, an imminent fourth manufacturing recession since 2011 and George Osborne borrowing £172bn more than he said he would.
Yep, we have a lot of problems already. Not sure how adding to them helps though.
That assumes that Brexit adds to them.
As the Remainers are the same people who have presided over the creation of the current problems they don't have any credibility when warnings of the threats of others.
Hang on, how will it lead to higher taxes and less public spending?
Reducing immigration will reduce the number of people paying tax at a time when the population is growing older and more people are moving into retirement.
Most immigrants are in low paying jobs that are a negative impact on govt finances when the costs of supporting them and benefits are accounted for.
Can you link to your ante-05/05/16 posts that stated that the Ruth for Second Best party would come ahead of SLab, and associated recommended bets? Thanks.
Hang on, how will it lead to higher taxes and less public spending?
Reducing immigration will reduce the number of people paying tax at a time when the population is growing older and more people are moving into retirement.
I'm glad we've moved on to this.
The biggest lie ever is that the population must grow to support an ageing population, if that is the case it must grown exponentially, until the population of the Isle of Wight is 20m. SOME immigration is good, Luka Modric will pay £hundreds of thousands a year in taxes, the amount contributed by a farmworker in Boston is negligible.
I want a few more Luka Modric and a few less farmworkers, those who watch Jeremy Kyle can pick spuds like we did for centuries.
A decade ago, a demand number below 25GW was absolutely unheard of, and pretty much every day saw peak demand exceed 40GW. The National Grid forecast that by 2018, we'd see daily demand peaking in the 45GW range.
Yet right now, electricity demand is sub 25GW, and we've barely poked about 30GW in the last 24 hours.
The impact of energy efficiency measures - and the effect of higher electricity prices - has had a staggering effect of consumption.
I've been one of the biggest bears on electricity demand around, and I've been wildly over-optimistic.
But electricity is cheap as chips in historical terms. I pay 9.68p per unit at the moment inc VAT
Only between 1997 and 2005 were electricity prices cheaper inflation adjusted than they are now. Look at 1984. Equivalent 13.33 per unit and average wages since then have far outstripped inflation.
Its curious that those predicting economic doom following Brexit have so little concern about the current economic problems Britain is in.
Such as the current account being at a record high, the savings ration being at a record low, stagnant productivity and real wages, falling home ownership, an imminent fourth manufacturing recession since 2011 and George Osborne borrowing £172bn more than he said he would.
Yep, we have a lot of problems already. Not sure how adding to them helps though.
That assumes that Brexit adds to them.
As the Remainers are the same people who have presided over the creation of the current problems they don't have any credibility when warnings of the threats of others.
The Leavers have presided over it too. The Tory Leavers signed up fully to the current government's fiscal and economic policy, for example. They have supported George Osborne as Chancellor and praised his stewardship of the economy. The Labour Leavers did the same with Brown.
@tamcohen: Jacob Rees-Mogg: 'What Boris said was absolutely true...but instead of doing it by force, EU doing it by stealth.' #Peston
Bloody hell. So are there secret gas chambers and ovens out there that we do not know about?
I like JR-M (a lot more than I like Boris) but I really can't understand why he is pushing this line.
For the vast majority of the British public the name Hitler means genocide and gas chambers. If you want to make a claim about European domination then there are lots of other plausible examples without the emotive connotations of Nazism. Invoking Hitler is a lazy, ill informed route to take. It is Leave doing exactly what Remain have been doing and making ludicrous claims.
Boris' claim is the ultimate aim is identical, albeit by different means. It appears people trust him, perhaps when people have stopped jumping up and down they'll realise he was right.
Perhaps when my fellow leavers stop jumping up and down to defend him, they will realise that that is not even the point. Ken Livingstone thought he was right too, but even if he had been, he should have known and Boris should have known that bringing up hitler rarely helps, it only distracts from the point. Instead of talking about how the eu wants to be a superstate, which it does, people will see hitler and wonder how else Boris thinks the Euis like him. (And no, I don't think most normal people will notice)
Since his point didn't need to bring in hitler, he shouldn't have done so. End of, he was being an idiot.
Furthermore, this referendum has revealed both campaigns to be whiny idiots. Remain brief about war and complain when that is the headline and people miss the nuance. Boris brings up hitler and now leave are complaining he didn't mean in other ways.
In both cases extreme points were seized upon by the opposition. That's politics, stop complaining it happens. Ultimately, both could have avoided it by being less stupid.
Have Boris's Hitler remarks been shown to have damaged Leave?
Hang on, how will it lead to higher taxes and less public spending?
Reducing immigration will reduce the number of people paying tax at a time when the population is growing older and more people are moving into retirement.
I'm glad we've moved on to this.
The biggest lie ever is that the population must grow to support an ageing population, if that is the case it must grown exponentially, until the population of the Isle of Wight is 20m. SOME immigration is good, Luka Modric will pay £hundreds of thousands a year in taxes, the amount contributed by a farmworker in Boston is negligible.
I want a few more Luka Modric and a few less farmworkers, those who watch Jeremy Kyle can pick spuds like we did for centuries.
I understand. You want higher taxes and lower public spending.
Hang on, how will it lead to higher taxes and less public spending?
Reducing immigration will reduce the number of people paying tax at a time when the population is growing older and more people are moving into retirement.
I'm glad we've moved on to this.
The biggest lie ever is that the population must grow to support an ageing population, if that is the case it must grown exponentially, until the population of the Isle of Wight is 20m. SOME immigration is good, Luka Modric will pay £hundreds of thousands a year in taxes, the amount contributed by a farmworker in Boston is negligible.
I want a few more Luka Modric and a few less farmworkers, those who watch Jeremy Kyle can pick spuds like we did for centuries.
Surely you need to keep the ratio between retirees and working people stable, one way or another, or an ever greater portion of workers' incomes will be spent on supporting non-workers.
There are obviously various ways to do this, but if you have a diminishing number of workers, and a rising number of retirees (as in Japan), then you have similarly serious issues to your 20m on the IoW scenario.
Hang on, how will it lead to higher taxes and less public spending?
Reducing immigration will reduce the number of people paying tax at a time when the population is growing older and more people are moving into retirement.
Stopping immigration won't be reducing anything. In any case, haven't you been arguing that the State pension burden is reducing?
But there is one massive flaw in your scheme; haven't these immigrants got their own old people to support?
I must say you increasing sound like a conman trying to suck even more rubes into his Ponzi scheme to keep it afloat.
I want a few more Luka Modric and a few less farmworkers, those who watch Jeremy Kyle can pick spuds like we did for centuries.
Maoist / Pol Pot LEAVE is LEAVE's darkest timeline.
If required to compete with the British benefits system, these businesses may simply cease to function. The UK will increase its trade deficit and less taxation will be paid to the Treasury (though I suppose if the Treasury is the Worst Thing Ever, maybe you don't mind).
Hang on, how will it lead to higher taxes and less public spending?
Reducing immigration will reduce the number of people paying tax at a time when the population is growing older and more people are moving into retirement.
Most immigrants are in low paying jobs that are a negative impact on govt finances when the costs of supporting them and benefits are accounted for.
Hang on, how will it lead to higher taxes and less public spending?
Reducing immigration will reduce the number of people paying tax at a time when the population is growing older and more people are moving into retirement.
I'm glad we've moved on to this.
The biggest lie ever is that the population must grow to support an ageing population, if that is the case it must grown exponentially, until the population of the Isle of Wight is 20m. SOME immigration is good, Luka Modric will pay £hundreds of thousands a year in taxes, the amount contributed by a farmworker in Boston is negligible.
I want a few more Luka Modric and a few less farmworkers, those who watch Jeremy Kyle can pick spuds like we did for centuries.
I understand. You want higher taxes and lower public spending.
I'm disappointed that you wilfully misrepresented me.
I want immigrants to come here that contribute to our economy, pretending that they all do is simply untrue.
The full letter to the Sunday Times on Cameron's pitiful negotiations with the Brussels and how we have all been conned by him.
DAVID CAMERON negotiated an EU-UK agreement the million-plus asylum seekers who arrived in Germany last year. But once these immigrants are naturalised in Germany (and elsewhere) there is nothing to prevent them from exercising their right to free movement and cross the Channel legally. The UK may not be part of the EU’s common asylum policy, but no country will be able to escape its consequences.
Gunnar Beck, (Barrister in EU law), London; Professors Charles Blankart, Berlin, Gerd Habermann, Potsdam University, Dietrich Murswiek, Freiburg University, Alfred Schüller, Marburg University, Joachim Starbatty (MEP), Tübingen University, Roland Vaubel, Mannheim University; HansOlaf Henkel, MEP and former president of the German Federation of Industry
I note that next Sunday's game changer is that odd unfunny chap Eddie izzard on the Marr show next week getting out the young vote for himself or is it REMAIN?
Hang on, how will it lead to higher taxes and less public spending?
Reducing immigration will reduce the number of people paying tax at a time when the population is growing older and more people are moving into retirement.
Most immigrants are in low paying jobs that are a negative impact on govt finances when the costs of supporting them and benefits are accounted for.
Hang on, how will it lead to higher taxes and less public spending?
Reducing immigration will reduce the number of people paying tax at a time when the population is growing older and more people are moving into retirement.
I'm glad we've moved on to this.
The biggest lie ever is that the population must grow to support an ageing population, if that is the case it must grown exponentially, until the population of the Isle of Wight is 20m. SOME immigration is good, Luka Modric will pay £hundreds of thousands a year in taxes, the amount contributed by a farmworker in Boston is negligible.
I want a few more Luka Modric and a few less farmworkers, those who watch Jeremy Kyle can pick spuds like we did for centuries.
Surely you need to keep the ratio between retirees and working people stable, one way or another, or an ever greater portion of workers' incomes will be spent on supporting non-workers.
There are obviously various ways to do this, but if you have a diminishing number of workers, and a rising number of retirees (as in Japan), then you have similarly serious issues to your 20m on the IoW scenario.
Its about productivity of workers, not just numbers, which is why I quoted workers such as Luka Modric. He contributes the equivalent of hundreds of "ordinary" workers.
Let's get a few more like Modric I say (especially to play for Spurs)
@tamcohen: Jacob Rees-Mogg: 'What Boris said was absolutely true...but instead of doing it by force, EU doing it by stealth.' #Peston
Bloody hell. So are there secret gas chambers and ovens out there that we do not know about?
I like JR-M (a lot more than I like Boris) but I really can't understand why he is pushing this line.
For the vast majority of the British public the name Hitler means genocide and gas chambers. If you want to make a claim about European domination then there are lots of other plausible examples without the emotive connotations of Nazism. Invoking Hitler is a lazy, ill informed route to take. It is Leave doing exactly what Remain have been doing and making ludicrous claims.
Boris' claim is the ultimate aim is identical, albeit by different means. It appears people trust him, perhaps when people have stopped jumping up and down they'll realise he was right.
Per
Have Boris's Hitler remarks been shown to have damaged Leave?
They might not - but his points may not be as effective as they could have been for Leave, because most people won't see anything about his fundamental point and will just see the Hitler comparison. As an example, I'm for Leave and it's annoyed me no end. Not representative, to be sure, but already I'm less interested in what he might have to say next time, and if a waverer feels the same, that could be important.
It doesn't have to be that Leave have been negatively impacted; they could well have missed out on a positive impact because Boris was an idiot and dropped in a Hitler comparison when he didn't need to - he already made the point without it.
Hang on, how will it lead to higher taxes and less public spending?
Reducing immigration will reduce the number of people paying tax at a time when the population is growing older and more people are moving into retirement.
Most immigrants are in low paying jobs that are a negative impact on govt finances when the costs of supporting them and benefits are accounted for.
The full letter to the Sunday Times on Cameron's pitiful negotiations with the Brussels and how we have all been conned by him.
DAVID CAMERON negotiated an EU-UK agreement the million-plus asylum seekers who arrived in Germany last year. But once these immigrants are naturalised in Germany (and elsewhere) there is nothing to prevent them from exercising their right to free movement and cross the Channel legally. The UK may not be part of the EU’s common asylum policy, but no country will be able to escape its consequences.
Gunnar Beck, (Barrister in EU law), London; Professors Charles Blankart, Berlin, Gerd Habermann, Potsdam University, Dietrich Murswiek, Freiburg University, Alfred Schüller, Marburg University, Joachim Starbatty (MEP), Tübingen University, Roland Vaubel, Mannheim University; HansOlaf Henkel, MEP and former president of the German Federation of Industry
MikeK - thanks for sight of this:
It can't be said too often.
Dave = EU = Mass Uncontrolled Immigration
He's a goner.
The trouble is that controlled immigration isn't on the ballot paper. A vote to leave will lead to a protracted negotiation for access to the free trade area of EU. I honestly can't see the people involved in these negotiations getting to a deal where we don't have to sign back up to free movement of people.
Hang on, how will it lead to higher taxes and less public spending?
Reducing immigration will reduce the number of people paying tax at a time when the population is growing older and more people are moving into retirement.
Most immigrants are in low paying jobs that are a negative impact on govt finances when the costs of supporting them and benefits are accounted for.
I don't think that's true.
I don't know what's true and what isn't, but I get annoyed when I hear aggregate statistics mentioned. I'm sure it's the case that when all immigrants are added together they contribute more than they take out. The problem, of course, is that the likes of Aguero, Hazard and Ozil skew the figures dramatically. For me, the critical question is, what proportion of immigrants are net contributors?
I want a few more Luka Modric and a few less farmworkers, those who watch Jeremy Kyle can pick spuds like we did for centuries.
Maoist / Pol Pot LEAVE is LEAVE's darkest timeline.
If required to compete with the British benefits system, these businesses may simply cease to function. The UK will increase its trade deficit and less taxation will be paid to the Treasury (though I suppose if the Treasury is the Worst Thing Ever, maybe you don't mind).
Hang on, how will it lead to higher taxes and less public spending?
Reducing immigration will reduce the number of people paying tax at a time when the population is growing older and more people are moving into retirement.
Most immigrants are in low paying jobs that are a negative impact on govt finances when the costs of supporting them and benefits are accounted for.
@tamcohen: Jacob Rees-Mogg: 'What Boris said was absolutely true...but instead of doing it by force, EU doing it by stealth.' #Peston
Bloody hell. So are there secret gas chambers and ovens out there that we do not know about?
I like JR-M (a lot more than I like Boris) but I really can't understand why he is pushing this line.
For the vast majority of the British public the name Hitler means genocide and gas chambers. If you want to make a claim about European domination then there are lots of other plausible examples without the emotive connotations of Nazism. Invoking Hitler is a lazy, ill informed route to take. It is Leave doing exactly what Remain have been doing and making ludicrous claims.
Boris' claim is the ultimate aim is identical, albeit by different means. It appears people trust him, perhaps when people have stopped jumping up and down they'll realise he was right.
Per
Have Boris's Hitler remarks been shown to have damaged Leave?
They might not - but his points may not be as effective as they could have been for Leave, because most people won't see anything about his fundamental point and will just see the Hitler comparison. As an example, I'm for Leave and it's annoyed me no end. Not representative, to be sure, but already I'm less interested in what he might have to say next time, and if a waverer feels the same, that could be important. It doesn't have to be that Leave have been negatively impacted; they could well have missed out on a positive impact because Boris was an idiot and dropped in a Hitler comparison when he didn't need to - he already made the point without it.
Would I prefer if Boris did not mention the word Hitler? My answer is yes. Is the headline bad for LEAVE? Answer possibly not, as Boris is much more trusted as a front man than Cameron. Sometimes he is given far more leeway than most politicians.
Hang on, how will it lead to higher taxes and less public spending?
Reducing immigration will reduce the number of people paying tax at a time when the population is growing older and more people are moving into retirement.
Most immigrants are in low paying jobs that are a negative impact on govt finances when the costs of supporting them and benefits are accounted for.
Hang on, how will it lead to higher taxes and less public spending?
Reducing immigration will reduce the number of people paying tax at a time when the population is growing older and more people are moving into retirement.
I'm glad we've moved on to this.
The biggest lie ever is that the population must grow to support an ageing population, if that is the case it must grown exponentially, until the population of the Isle of Wight is 20m. SOME immigration is good, Luka Modric will pay £hundreds of thousands a year in taxes, the amount contributed by a farmworker in Boston is negligible.
I want a few more Luka Modric and a few less farmworkers, those who watch Jeremy Kyle can pick spuds like we did for centuries.
Surely you need to keep the ratio between retirees and working people stable, one way or another, or an ever greater portion of workers' incomes will be spent on supporting non-workers.
There are obviously various ways to do this, but if you have a diminishing number of workers, and a rising number of retirees (as in Japan), then you have similarly serious issues to your 20m on the IoW scenario.
Try real economic growth ie. productivity growth.
A good thing about this referendum is that it driven to the surface the hidden agenda of the Establishment for all to see: immigration, political union, etc.
I must have missed all the Tory PBers calling the Chancellor "Osbrown" during the general election ..... Funny that ....
That was before he got crap.... If he had put forward the various policy positions as his own, rather than the exact opposite then having to do the U-turn, he would be in a much better position. But he has not had a good year. And then there are the dozens of MPs holding an IOU from him for a job. They're going to be unhappy campers when they realise they are worthless...
Hang on, how will it lead to higher taxes and less public spending?
Reducing immigration will reduce the number of people paying tax at a time when the population is growing older and more people are moving into retirement.
Most immigrants are in low paying jobs that are a negative impact on govt finances when the costs of supporting them and benefits are accounted for.
Says who?
Perhaps all those potato pickers, chambermaids, cleaners and carwashers are on above average wages.
But I suspect not.
If immigrants are so highly skilled / productive / paid / tax contributing then why has the decade of mass immigration also been the decade of stagnant productivity and real wages and during which the government has needed to borrow a trillion pounds to stop the economy from collapsing.
We need to consider time frames here. How long after a vote to leave would it take to actually leave? I suspect what TSE is really saying is that a recession shortly after a vote to leave could be blamed on voting to leave.
Financially this country is completely f****** whether we stay in the EU or not. At some point our government will have to make some very tough decisions. While I'm happy to see those decisions taken outside the EU - and take any collateral criticism from the told you so brigade - should we vote to stay in, one silver lining will be watching Cameron and Osborne deal with the faltering economy.
It won't Osborne's problem after July....
I don't envy whoever follows Osborne. I get that he inherited a pretty dire situation from Labour, bur Osborne's latest budget was a disgrace. I hope whoever takes over from him in June - should that happen - gets on with the business of sorting out the public finances rather than buying off the votes of backbenchers.
I'd forgotten all about the budget.
That was full of wheezes that have fallen apart pretty quickly.
It was another "game-changer" for Remain that's has turned out to be a damp squib.
Yes, all these game changers from Osborne running the REMAIN campaign. Just like all those relaunches of Brown as PM we used to watch.....
Oh my, I'd forgotten about Gordon's relaunches - they were brilliantly awful.
One poster on here labelled our Chancellor as Osbrown and it is a label that he has grown into. Just look at the REMAIN campaign led by Osborne. A series of "game changing" announcements with SFA improvement for REMAIN.
I think it was @Alanbrooke or @another_richard years ago. I used to think it was OTT, now I'm finding myself in agreement.
Plato, with your consistency, you will soon be saying how good Cameron and Osborne is. June 24th is just round the corner.
Hang on, how will it lead to higher taxes and less public spending?
Reducing immigration will reduce the number of people paying tax at a time when the population is growing older and more people are moving into retirement.
Most immigrants are in low paying jobs that are a negative impact on govt finances when the costs of supporting them and benefits are accounted for.
I don't think that's true.
I don't know what's true and what isn't, but I get annoyed when I hear aggregate statistics mentioned. I'm sure it's the case that when all immigrants are added together they contribute more than they take out. The problem, of course, is that the likes of Aguero, Hazard and Ozil skew the figures dramatically. For me, the critical question is, what proportion of immigrants are net contributors?
Hang on, how will it lead to higher taxes and less public spending?
Reducing immigration will reduce the number of people paying tax at a time when the population is growing older and more people are moving into retirement.
Most immigrants are in low paying jobs that are a negative impact on govt finances when the costs of supporting them and benefits are accounted for.
I don't think that's true.
I don't know what's true and what isn't, but I get annoyed when I hear aggregate statistics mentioned. I'm sure it's the case that when all immigrants are added together they contribute more than they take out. The problem, of course, is that the likes of Aguero, Hazard and Ozil skew the figures dramatically. For me, the critical question is, what proportion of immigrants are net contributors?
You see now we're getting there. You won't get an answer.
"The Out side has taken such a pummelling on the economy that, if this were a boxing match, the referee would be stepping in to stop the fight. When anyone dares to express an opinion about the hazards of Brexit, the Outers now routinely wail that it is somehow “unfair” or “bullying” or even a “conspiracy”. That suggests that some of them wish that there really was a referee who could intervene to spare them any more punches."
Did you miss the poll of polls you deluded freak?
50/50
At what point will the flailing REMAINIACS admit that all is not going quite to plan?
Back from hour's walk and catching up.
SeanT please do not call Meeks a freak... it may give him and the other *&%!!* REMAINers on here the go ahead to hurl abuse on all LEAVErs, who are trying and have a polite discussion.
Of course it is for PB moderators to intervene and deal with abuse but one of them would be looking at a mirror and banning themselves!
Please tell me what is polite about inaccurately smearing pollsters like you did yesterday?
Hang on, how will it lead to higher taxes and less public spending?
Reducing immigration will reduce the number of people paying tax at a time when the population is growing older and more people are moving into retirement.
I'm glad we've moved on to this.
The biggest lie ever is that the population must grow to support an ageing population, if that is the case it must grown exponentially, until the population of the Isle of Wight is 20m. SOME immigration is good, Luka Modric will pay £hundreds of thousands a year in taxes, the amount contributed by a farmworker in Boston is negligible.
I want a few more Luka Modric and a few less farmworkers, those who watch Jeremy Kyle can pick spuds like we did for centuries.
I understand. You want higher taxes and lower public spending.
I'm disappointed that you wilfully misrepresented me.
I want immigrants to come here that contribute to our economy, pretending that they all do is simply untrue.
EU immigrants do contribute more than they take out. Strict post-Brexit immigration controls will lead to higher taxes and lower public spending.
Hang on, how will it lead to higher taxes and less public spending?
Reducing immigration will reduce the number of people paying tax at a time when the population is growing older and more people are moving into retirement.
Most immigrants are in low paying jobs that are a negative impact on govt finances when the costs of supporting them and benefits are accounted for.
I don't think that's true.
Which is it that you do not think is true? Is it that most immigrants are low paid or that low paid people are a drain on the govt finances?
I want a few more Luka Modric and a few less farmworkers, those who watch Jeremy Kyle can pick spuds like we did for centuries.
Maoist / Pol Pot LEAVE is LEAVE's darkest timeline.
If required to compete with the British benefits system, these businesses may simply cease to function. The UK will increase its trade deficit and less taxation will be paid to the Treasury (though I suppose if the Treasury is the Worst Thing Ever, maybe you don't mind).
Hang on, how will it lead to higher taxes and less public spending?
Reducing immigration will reduce the number of people paying tax at a time when the population is growing older and more people are moving into retirement.
Most immigrants are in low paying jobs that are a negative impact on govt finances when the costs of supporting them and benefits are accounted for.
Says who?
Perhaps all those potato pickers, chambermaids, cleaners and carwashers are on above average wages.
But I suspect not.
If immigrants are so highly skilled / productive / paid / tax contributing then why has the decade of mass immigration also been the decade of stagnant productivity and real wages and during which the government has needed to borrow a trillion pounds to stop the economy from collapsing.
Almost all the developed world - with the exception of Spain and Germany - has seen flat productivity in the last decade.
Can you link to your ante-05/05/16 posts that stated that the Ruth for Second Best party would come ahead of SLab, and associated recommended bets? Thanks.
@tamcohen: Jacob Rees-Mogg: 'What Boris said was absolutely true...but instead of doing it by force, EU doing it by stealth.' #Peston
Bloody hell. So are there secret gas chambers and ovens out there that we do not know about?
I like JR-M (a lot more than I like Boris) but I really can't understand why he is pushing this line.
For the vast majority of the British public the name Hitler means genocide and gas chambers. If you want to make a claim about European domination then there are lots of other plausible examples without the emotive connotations of Nazism. Invoking Hitler is a lazy, ill informed route to take. It is Leave doing exactly what Remain have been doing and making ludicrous claims.
Boris' claim is the ultimate aim is identical, albeit by different means. It appears people trust him, perhaps when people have stopped jumping up and down they'll realise he was right.
Per
Have Boris's Hitler remarks been shown to have damaged Leave?
They might not - but his points may not be as effective as they could have been for Leave, because most people won't see anything about his fundamental point and will just see the Hitler comparison. As an example, I'm for Leave and it's annoyed me no end. Not representative, to be sure, but already I'm less interested in what he might have to say next time, and if a waverer feels the same, that could be important. It doesn't have to be that Leave have been negatively impacted; they could well have missed out on a positive impact because Boris was an idiot and dropped in a Hitler comparison when he didn't need to - he already made the point without it.
Would I prefer if Boris did not mention the word Hitler? My answer is yes. Is the headline bad for LEAVE? Answer possibly not
It's a possibility, sure, but I feel it was an unnecessary risk to take. Not that Remain are in a prime position to take advantage of it, given their own hyperbolic tendencies, but they'll extrapolate from Boris' point when he makes future good ones, you can bet on that. And he will be in a position of of explaining that he only meant the EU was like Hitler this way, not that way. And what is it many of us in Leave said about Remain counters to Leave claims on for instance the 350 million? About when you're explaining you're losing?
Not losing the war, not even the battle, necessarily, but a fight that didn't even need to be fought.
And now I really do need to leave (no pun intended).
Hang on, how will it lead to higher taxes and less public spending?
Reducing immigration will reduce the number of people paying tax at a time when the population is growing older and more people are moving into retirement.
I'm glad we've moved on to this.
The biggest lie ever is that the population must grow to support an ageing population, if that is the case it must grown exponentially, until the population of the Isle of Wight is 20m. SOME immigration is good, Luka Modric will pay £hundreds of thousands a year in taxes, the amount contributed by a farmworker in Boston is negligible.
I want a few more Luka Modric and a few less farmworkers, those who watch Jeremy Kyle can pick spuds like we did for centuries.
Surely you need to keep the ratio between retirees and working people stable, one way or another, or an ever greater portion of workers' incomes will be spent on supporting non-workers.
There are obviously various ways to do this, but if you have a diminishing number of workers, and a rising number of retirees (as in Japan), then you have similarly serious issues to your 20m on the IoW scenario.
Isn't the problem at least partly solvable by increasing the wealth generated by the working population without increasing their numbers. A worker on say £50k, earned because he or she is generating more than £50k's worth for his/her firm, is going to be paying more tax than probably 3 immigrants on the minimum wage.
Innovation and investment is probably a better route to take than importing more and more workers who come with their own set of costs. That seems to be the route that Japan and other countries are trying (see number of robots in use in Japan and Korea as compared to the UK).
Of course, that is a lot harder thing to set up, it requires a good education system (which we haven't got), managers in companies prepared to look beyond the short term share value (of which we seem to have far too few), and politicians prepared also to look beyond the next election, or even the next set of headlines (are there any?).
Hang on, how will it lead to higher taxes and less public spending?
Reducing immigration will reduce the number of people paying tax at a time when the population is growing older and more people are moving into retirement.
Most immigrants are in low paying jobs that are a negative impact on govt finances when the costs of supporting them and benefits are accounted for.
Says who?
Perhaps all those potato pickers, chambermaids, cleaners and carwashers are on above average wages.
But I suspect not.
If immigrants are so highly skilled / productive / paid / tax contributing then why has the decade of mass immigration also been the decade of stagnant productivity and real wages and during which the government has needed to borrow a trillion pounds to stop the economy from collapsing.
They are paying tax and they are taking out less than they put in. They are also a relatively small percentage of the workforce. In 2008 we have a financial crash. I imagine a fair few issues we have are related to that.
I want a few more Luka Modric and a few less farmworkers, those who watch Jeremy Kyle can pick spuds like we did for centuries.
Maoist / Pol Pot LEAVE is LEAVE's darkest timeline.
If required to compete with the British benefits system, these businesses may simply cease to function. The UK will increase its trade deficit and less taxation will be paid to the Treasury (though I suppose if the Treasury is the Worst Thing Ever, maybe you don't mind).
Andrew Neil "It is Andrew Cooper who is briefing that the underlying facts from the polls is that REMAIN is miles ahead". Source of that Times statement.
Hang on, how will it lead to higher taxes and less public spending?
Reducing immigration will reduce the number of people paying tax at a time when the population is growing older and more people are moving into retirement.
Most immigrants are in low paying jobs that are a negative impact on govt finances when the costs of supporting them and benefits are accounted for.
I don't think that's true.
We're all liable to a tendency to assume that our own experiences are the standard.
Hence a good upper middle class metropolitan like yourself will assume that immigrants are similar to those one you interact with ie other upper-middle class metropolitans.
A good example being your previous belief that 93% of EU immigrants lived in and around London.
The full letter to the Sunday Times on Cameron's pitiful negotiations with the Brussels and how we have all been conned by him.
DAVID CAMERON negotiated an EU-UK agreement the million-plus asylum seekers who arrived in Germany last year. But once these immigrants are naturalised in Germany (and elsewhere) there is nothing to prevent them from exercising their right to free movement and cross the Channel legally. The UK may not be part of the EU’s common asylum policy, but no country will be able to escape its consequences.
Gunnar Beck, (Barrister in EU law), London; Professors Charles Blankart, Berlin, Gerd Habermann, Potsdam University, Dietrich Murswiek, Freiburg University, Alfred Schüller, Marburg University, Joachim Starbatty (MEP), Tübingen University, Roland Vaubel, Mannheim University; HansOlaf Henkel, MEP and former president of the German Federation of Industry
MikeK - thanks for sight of this:
It can't be said too often.
Dave = EU = Mass Uncontrolled Immigration
He's a goner.
The trouble is that controlled immigration isn't on the ballot paper. A vote to leave will lead to a protracted negotiation for access to the free trade area of EU. I honestly can't see the people involved in these negotiations getting to a deal where we don't have to sign back up to free movement of people.
You mean like the USA is having to do RIGHT NOW for TTIP?
"The Out side has taken such a pummelling on the economy that, if this were a boxing match, the referee would be stepping in to stop the fight. When anyone dares to express an opinion about the hazards of Brexit, the Outers now routinely wail that it is somehow “unfair” or “bullying” or even a “conspiracy”. That suggests that some of them wish that there really was a referee who could intervene to spare them any more punches."
Did you miss the poll of polls you deluded freak?
50/50
At what point will the flailing REMAINIACS admit that all is not going quite to plan?
Back from hour's walk and catching up.
SeanT please do not call Meeks a freak... it may give him and the other *&%!!* REMAINers on here the go ahead to hurl abuse on all LEAVErs, who are trying and have a polite discussion.
Of course it is for PB moderators to intervene and deal with abuse but one of them would be looking at a mirror and banning themselves!
By SeanT's standards, that was almost a compliment.
Hang on, how will it lead to higher taxes and less public spending?
Reducing immigration will reduce the number of people paying tax at a time when the population is growing older and more people are moving into retirement.
I'm glad we've moved on to this.
The biggest lie ever is that the population must grow to support an ageing population, if that is the case it must grown exponentially, until the population of the Isle of Wight is 20m. SOME immigration is good, Luka Modric will pay £hundreds of thousands a year in taxes, the amount contributed by a farmworker in Boston is negligible.
I want a few more Luka Modric and a few less farmworkers, those who watch Jeremy Kyle can pick spuds like we did for centuries.
Surely you need to keep the ratio between retirees and working people stable, one way or another, or an ever greater portion of workers' incomes will be spent on supporting non-workers.
There are obviously various ways to do this, but if you have a diminishing number of workers, and a rising number of retirees (as in Japan), then you have similarly serious issues to your 20m on the IoW scenario.
Isn't the problem at least partly solvable by increasing the wealth generated by the working population without increasing their numbers. A worker on say £50k, earned because he or she is generating more than £50k's worth for his/her firm, is going to be paying more tax than probably 3 immigrants on the minimum wage.
Innovation and investment is probably a better route to take than importing more and more workers who come with their own set of costs. That seems to be the route that Japan and other countries are trying (see number of robots in use in Japan and Korea as compared to the UK).
Of course, that is a lot harder thing to set up, it requires a good education system (which we haven't got), managers in companies prepared to look beyond the short term share value (of which we seem to have far too few), and politicians prepared also to look beyond the next election, or even the next set of headlines (are there any?).
We can innovate and invest now. And we can put in place incentives to do so. If it is not happening blame piss-poor British managements and the government. The EU is not stopping us. If there are fewer job opportunities then there will be fewer immigrants.
Comments
I am beginning to hope for a 50.5-49.5 REMAIN result. 30 or more MPs could get out.
EDIT: misunderstood, you mean landlords, agree entirely.
Such as the current account being at a record high, the savings ration being at a record low, stagnant productivity and real wages, falling home ownership, an imminent fourth manufacturing recession since 2011 and George Osborne borrowing £172bn more than he said he would.
It includes the words Scottish National Party, vote and won
If you are struggling, Malk, get your grandkids to explain it to you
We should also bear in mind my generation and the one following it will, on average, live shorter lives due to sedentary lifestyles (not innocent of that myself...) and cake addictions (I am innocent of this, though).
Wish I had better answers, but doing something we know won't work [as well as damaging social cohesion, amongst other things] is worse than doing nothing.
That pension lifeboat is filling with ever more passengers (latest boarders - BHS pensioners).
Considering the abysmal rates for annuities, people are being forced into benefits in their retirement.
I see very little deep understanding of retirement provision in your posts or of the issues involved.
It is still the same bunch of donkeys with assorted rightwing dummies added, they are going nowhere. Their loaner votes from Labour will melt away soon.
Grow up ffs
Didn't that fail before?
Since his point didn't need to bring in hitler, he shouldn't have done so. End of, he was being an idiot.
Furthermore, this referendum has revealed both campaigns to be whiny idiots. Remain brief about war and complain when that is the headline and people miss the nuance. Boris brings up hitler and now leave are complaining he didn't mean in other ways.
In both cases extreme points were seized upon by the opposition. That's politics, stop complaining it happens. Ultimately, both could have avoided it by being less stupid.
It includes the words Scottish National Party, vote and won
If you are struggling, Malk, get your grandkids to explain it to you
You will not need to worry about that for sure, ask your nurse to explain it to you.
I reckon he won;t be the only tory MP to see it that way.
Bringing up Hitler just detracts from that.
It's reminiscent of Cameron's global war warning. Why do both chaps (and others) have such massive blind spots in their perception?
Of course in SNP land the Police are better employed arresting Nazi dogs and football supporters while leaving people to die at the side of the road....
Hang on, how will it lead to higher taxes and less public spending?
Maybe but its the hammer that knocks the nail in, Mr Morris. The press are all over it.
SeanT please do not call Meeks a freak... it may give him and the other *&%!!* REMAINers on here the go ahead to hurl abuse on all LEAVErs, who are trying and have a polite discussion.
Of course it is for PB moderators to intervene and deal with abuse but one of them would be looking at a mirror and banning themselves!
Bit like being England manager.
Possibly the same govt person who got the message to Marr during the newspaper chat that the PM "had not warned of WWIII". An extraordinary concession by Marr.
DAVID CAMERON negotiated an EU-UK agreement that in the circumstances was probably the best deal he could secure. But its limitations should send a warning about the type of EU that Britons would be voting to remain part of. The deal does not go far beyond existing British opt-outs and vague commitments. Take the declaration that the UK is not committed to ever-closer union. There is not a single important judgment where the European Court of Justice has relied on this verbal formula as the exclusive legal basis for driving EU integration. There is nothing in this deal that protects the UK from Luxembourg’s future judicial activism.
Moreover, the supposed “red card” whereby national parliaments can veto EU legislation envisages impractical circumstances where the opposition parties in 16 countries simultaneously stage a successful rebellion against their majority governments. The “emergency brake” on welfare benefits by EU migrants will, of course, achieve very limited savings because the vast majority of such migrants are working. The same cannot always be said for the million-plus asylum seekers who arrived in Germany last year. But once these immigrants are naturalised in Germany (and elsewhere) there is nothing to prevent them from exercising their right to free movement and cross the Channel legally. The UK may not be part of the EU’s common asylum policy, but no country will be able to escape its consequences.
We believe the EU needs the UK and its voice of reason, all the more at a time when almost everyone appears to have quit reason. Whether Britain needs the EU just as much is a different question entirely, and one for the people to resolve. But this is not a choice between change and no change. Rather, it is a choice between disembarking from the EU train now, or staying on as it hurtles towards further political integration.
Most reform-minded Germans hope Britain stays in the EU. But EU reform is a losing battle and many of us envy the British for having this debate and this referendum. And the chance to disembark from an EU project whose integration now threatens to undermine, rather than uphold, the liberty and prosperity of our continent.
Gunnar Beck, (Barrister in EU law), London; Professors Charles Blankart, Berlin, Gerd Habermann, Potsdam University, Dietrich Murswiek, Freiburg University, Alfred Schüller, Marburg University, Joachim Starbatty (MEP), Tübingen University, Roland Vaubel, Mannheim University; HansOlaf Henkel, MEP and former president of the German Federation of Industry
And why is either bad/good in and of themselves?
If HMG want to sort out the so-called demographic time bomb they would do better to reduce the taxes and duties payable on booze and fags and, possibly, even make make some recreational narcotics available on the NHS for the over 60s.
Carney's position is becoming more untenable after the referendum. Somewhat similar to Osborne and Cameron. A form of self harming behaviour.
If you look at electricity consumption trends since 2005, you see big declines in lighting (CFLs, LEDs), household (better insulation, massively more efficient appliances), and even in commercial (LCD screens rather than CRTs, laptops rather than desktops).
The decline in industrial usage has lagged other sectors.
As the Remainers are the same people who have presided over the creation of the current problems they don't have any credibility when warnings of the threats of others.
As it happens I also took the 8/1, and bought Tory seats at 21 on SPIN
I will also graciously accept your apology, Divot
The biggest lie ever is that the population must grow to support an ageing population, if that is the case it must grown exponentially, until the population of the Isle of Wight is 20m. SOME immigration is good, Luka Modric will pay £hundreds of thousands a year in taxes, the amount contributed by a farmworker in Boston is negligible.
I want a few more Luka Modric and a few less farmworkers, those who watch Jeremy Kyle can pick spuds like we did for centuries.
According to the UK government, the average (including taxes) at the end of 1Q16 was 15p.
Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/511316/QEP_Mar_2016_V2.pdf
There are obviously various ways to do this, but if you have a diminishing number of workers, and a rising number of retirees (as in Japan), then you have similarly serious issues to your 20m on the IoW scenario.
But there is one massive flaw in your scheme; haven't these immigrants got their own old people to support?
I must say you increasing sound like a conman trying to suck even more rubes into his Ponzi scheme to keep it afloat.
If required to compete with the British benefits system, these businesses may simply cease to function. The UK will increase its trade deficit and less taxation will be paid to the Treasury (though I suppose if the Treasury is the Worst Thing Ever, maybe you don't mind).
I want immigrants to come here that contribute to our economy, pretending that they all do is simply untrue.
MikeK - thanks for sight of this:
It can't be said too often.
Dave = EU = Mass Uncontrolled Immigration
He's a goner.
Let's get a few more like Modric I say (especially to play for Spurs)
It doesn't have to be that Leave have been negatively impacted; they could well have missed out on a positive impact because Boris was an idiot and dropped in a Hitler comparison when he didn't need to - he already made the point without it.
Is the headline bad for LEAVE? Answer possibly not, as Boris is much more trusted as a front man than Cameron. Sometimes he is given far more leeway than most politicians.
A good thing about this referendum is that it driven to the surface the hidden agenda of the Establishment for all to see: immigration, political union, etc.
But I suspect not.
If immigrants are so highly skilled / productive / paid / tax contributing then why has the decade of mass immigration also been the decade of stagnant productivity and real wages and during which the government has needed to borrow a trillion pounds to stop the economy from collapsing.
Life isn't all about GDP figures. This is about our society, democracy and sense of social cohesion. #EUref #Peston
Go on, I could do with a laugh.
Not losing the war, not even the battle, necessarily, but a fight that didn't even need to be fought.
And now I really do need to leave (no pun intended).
Innovation and investment is probably a better route to take than importing more and more workers who come with their own set of costs. That seems to be the route that Japan and other countries are trying (see number of robots in use in Japan and Korea as compared to the UK).
Of course, that is a lot harder thing to set up, it requires a good education system (which we haven't got), managers in companies prepared to look beyond the short term share value (of which we seem to have far too few), and politicians prepared also to look beyond the next election, or even the next set of headlines (are there any?).
One of us was a winner... The other a sore loser
Hence a good upper middle class metropolitan like yourself will assume that immigrants are similar to those one you interact with ie other upper-middle class metropolitans.
A good example being your previous belief that 93% of EU immigrants lived in and around London.
Does the EU know they'll be at the back of the Q?
Has Andrew Neil had a failed face lift; or is it overstretch BBC make up and a glued on Frisby?