politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The CBI give a thumbs up to Corbyn and Brussels said to be loo
Options
Comments
-
Well, unless you are arguing for completely open borders, everyone thinks there should be controls on immigration.
Likewise, no one sane thinks immigration should be zero.
It comes down to quality (skill), volumes (ability to manage) and cultural fit. The last category is where people are most squeamish, but I’m not sure why it should be controversial to say that a Dutch immigrant is more likely to assimilate than a Pakistani one. Policy should be colour blind, but perhaps not culture blind.0 -
Warm then , minus 11 in Brno.Benpointer said:AndyJS said:O/T
Minus 8 tonight in Rome.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/3169070
I hope it improves markedely within the next month - going on a Med cruise at the end of March. Brrr!0 -
Saying an idea is simplistic and that people believe those ideas is not to call them simpletons.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope you misquoted. A very common tactic from you when you cannot argue any other way.TOPPING said:
Blimey - all I do is quote your own words back at you and you go off on one.Richard_Tyndall said:
It must strange be so arrogant as to genuinely believe you are so vastly superior to the majority of the population who only exist to serve as disposable labour for you.TOPPING said:
From the horse's mouth: most Leavers (as per @HYUFD's endless polls quoting immigration as the key concern) are simpletons.
"They believe the rather simplistic idea that if the immigrants were not there..."
Saying an idea is simplistic is not the same as saying people are simpletons. It is only arrogant elitists like you who believe they are the same.
As I said you have some simplistic ideas as well. You display them daily on here.
Logic fail, sunshine.0 -
There's a difference between simplistic ideas and simpletons.TOPPING said:
Not me, guv - Richard PB Leaver Of Note Tyndall: "They believe the rather simplistic idea that if the immigrants were not there..."HYUFD said:
And in a sentence you have encapsulated why the Remain side lost the referendum!TOPPING said:
From the horse's mouth: most Leavers (as per @HYUFD's endless polls quoting immigration as the key concern) are simpletons.Richard_Tyndall said:
Because they believe (wrongly in my opinion) that immigrants are taking jobs. They also believe they are taking housing and putting a strain on vital services. They believe the rather simplistic idea that if the immigrants were not there, there would be more jobs, more services and more houses available to them.Benpointer said:
"...if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish..."Ishmael_Z said:
And, you know, there is no such thing as the economy as a whole. There are individual men and women, and there are families.HYUFD said:
Yes, Brexit followed by a Corbyn premiership that sees less low skilled immigration undercutting their wages and ends austerity and cuts to the public sector and is pro Union may well be in the interests of the working class, particularly the low skilled working class.dixiedean said:
Indeed many did. Although reviving heavy industry may be a stretch, decent secure longer term employment for the low skilled was important. That ties in with immigration of course.HYUFD said:
For many working class Leave voters they voted for Brexit to cut immigration and then for Corbyn to try and revive heavy industry and end austerity
Whether it is in the interests of the economy as a whole is another matter
Why should the low-skilled working class care about the economy as a whole, rather than themselves and their famat them.
This is the bit that genuinely baffles me. How would restricting immigration make anyone's life less rubbish? It's a genuine question.
It may be wrong but it is a powerful argument for people at the bottom of society.
Even Leavers think Leavers are simpletons.
The law of supply and demand is pretty simplistic but its at the heart of economic system.0 -
Well clearly you are a simpleton as you fail to understand even the basics of logic and language. Of course I don't actually believe that. I just believe you said something stupid you can't now take back and are having to try to defend an idiotic comment.TOPPING said:
Nah - not even close.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope. I believe the idea is simplistic. You believe simplistic ideas as well - like the economy is the most important thing in people's lives or that GDP growth is good even when it means GDP per capita is lower.TOPPING said:
Not me, guv - Richard PB Leaver Of Note Tyndall: "They believe the rather simplistic idea that if the immigrants were not there..."
Even Leavers think Leavers are simpletons.
These are simplistic (and wrong) ideas but I would not call you a simpleton. There are far too many other terms I could use for you.
You said that the Leavers believed a simplistic idea. Ergo they are simpletons.
What I believe about the economy and GDP (pause for chuckle at your adoption of the hard left's dismissal of GDP as being any kind of relevant measure) you would take 10,000 years to understand.
0 -
Good grief. Remainers are channeling their inner Bourbon tonight. The UK economy did very well for itself in the 80s and 90s with very low levels of net migration. Immigrants aren't some miracle ingredient.Benpointer said:
If you pursue that logic whilst ignoring the value added to the economy, taxation and public services by immigrants, you are arguing for a de-populated UK.Mortimer said:
Honestly?Benpointer said:
"...if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish..."Ishmael_Z said:HYUFD said:dixiedean said:HYUFD said:
For many working class Leave voters they voted for Brexit to cut immigration and then for Corbyn to try and revive heavy industry and end austeritydixiedean said:
Strikes me that article is more a call for the policies of Corbyn than those of Michael Gove. It criticises the deindustrialisation of the 80's and of austerity. It also states that for many life was more secure 40 years ago.TGOHF said:The CBI ? Lol.
Gove -and Harris get it. He doesn’t miss a few on here...
https://twitter.com/michaelgove/status/968203570502930436
It does not seem a cri de coeur for a radical environmental policy or free trade deals with Korea.
This is the bit that genuinely baffles me. How would restricting immigration make anyone's life less rubbish? It's a genuine question.
Mr Restricted Supply of workers drives higher wages and Mrs Less competition for scarce public services would like to meet you, to understand how anyone couldn't understand that unrestricted EU immigration can make life worse for many groups.
I thought we'd moved on from this, anyway, Mr Gardenwalker wrote a very good post ceding the 'immigration is wonderful' position a couple of weeks ago.
Our GDP/capita has slid sideways - we've grown our economy by simply adding workers. 'Make or Buy' is a common enough business decision. We've made the decision to buy our labour, rather than improve productivity or train our own folk. It's wonderful for businesses.
One of the quotes from the EUref which has stayed with me was someone yelling 'That's your bloody GDP' when one of the talking heads was quoting tractor statistics about the economy.
Let's say the referendum is overturned. A lot of the influx of EU workers was driven by the EZ economy struggling post-crash. What are we going to do when it's our turn to be in a slump and all our imported workers bugger off to Germany?0 -
As I said, I’m unconvinced of that.HYUFD said:
Cutting EU immigration is the one Brexit principle that is non negotiable for most Leave voters beyond of course actually leaving the EUGardenwalker said:
I’m unconvinced the mass of Brexit opinion is troubled by *any* detail of our post-Brexit status, so long as they think we are Leaving.Danny565 said:
I'm still waiting for any kind of polling evidence that trade deals were a significant motivator for Leave voters. Two different PB Brexiteers have promised it to me now, but still no sign of it.Foxy said:
Though only a tiny percent are interested in Fox's ficticious trade deals.
I even include immigration in that.0 -
methinks you should get thee to a thesaurus.another_richard said:
There's a difference between simplistic ideas and simpletons.TOPPING said:
Not me, guv - Richard PB Leaver Of Note Tyndall: "They believe the rather simplistic idea that if the immigrants were not there..."HYUFD said:
And in a sentence you have encapsulated why the Remain side lost the referendum!TOPPING said:
From the horse's mouth: most Leavers (as per @HYUFD's endless polls quoting immigration as the key concern) are simpletons.Richard_Tyndall said:
Because they believe (wrongly in my opinion) that immigrants are taking jobs. They also believe they are taking housing and putting a strain on vital services. They believe the rather simplistic idea that if the immigrants were not there, there would be more jobs, more services and more houses available to them.Benpointer said:
"...if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish..."Ishmael_Z said:
And, you know, there is no such thing as the economy as a whole. There are individual men and women, and there are families.HYUFD said:
Yes, Brexit followed by a Corbyn premiership that sees less low skilled immigration undercutting their wages and ends austerity and cuts to the public sector and is pro Union may well be in the interests of the working class, particularly the low skilled working class.dixiedean said:
Indeed many did. Although reviving heavy industry may be a stretch, decent secure longer term employment for the low skilled was important. That ties in with immigration of course.HYUFD said:
For many working class Leave voters they voted for Brexit to cut immigration and then for Corbyn to try and revive heavy industry and end austerity
Whether it is in the interests of the economy as a whole is another matter
Why should the low-skilled working class care about the economy as a whole, rather than themselves and their famat them.
This is the bit that genuinely baffles me. How would restricting immigration make anyone's life less rubbish? It's a genuine question.
It may be wrong but it is a powerful argument for people at the bottom of society.
Even Leavers think Leavers are simpletons.
The law of supply and demand is pretty simplistic but its at the heart of economic system.
You mean simple, not simplistic - the two are not synonymous (oh dear).0 -
Not sure that will be a negative tbh. The most anti-immigrant friends and relatives I have live in rural areas like North Dorset / South Somerset, North Yorkshire, the Scottish Borders, Oxfordshire. Those in London, Leeds, Halifax, Bristol, Brighton don't find it an issue (admittedly that does include some who are themselves immigrants).Recidivist said:
Or even that it does come down, but as the immigrants spread around the country more widely they become more noticeable.Benpointer said:AnneJGP said:
People don't need to "accurately judge" it - they just need to believe it.Benpointer said:
"...if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish..."Ishmael_Z said:
And, you know, there is no such thing as the economy as a whole. There are individual men and women, and there are families.HYUFD said:
Yes, Brexit followed by a Corbyn premiership that sees less low skilled immigration undercutting their wages and ends austerity and cuts to the public sector and is pro Union may well be in the interests of the working class, particularly the low skilled working class.dixiedean said:
Indeed many did. Although reviving heavy industry may be a stretch, decent secure longer term employment for the low skilled was important. That ties in with immigration of course.HYUFD said:
For many working class Leave voters they voted for Brexit to cut immigration and then for Corbyn to try and revive heavy industry and end austeritydixiedean said:TGOHF said:The CBI ? Lol.
Gove -and Harris get it. He doesn’t miss a few on here...
https://twitter.com/michaelgove/status/968203570502930436
Whether it is in the interests of the economy as a whole is another matter
Why should the low-skilled working class care about the economy as a whole, rather than themselves and their families? Nobody claims that trickle down is much of a thing any more, and if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish, they are entitled to vote accordingly without a chorus of pram-detoyers screeching "xenophobe" at them.
This is the bit that genuinely baffles me. How would restricting immigration make anyone's life less rubbish? It's a genuine question.
Yes, that's a valid point. It was the "accurately judge" that caught my eye.
There's trouble brewing though - either immigration won't come down as promised post-brexit or if it does come down it isn't going to improve the lot of anyone.0 -
Do they operate ice-breakers in the Med?Benpointer said:AndyJS said:O/T
Minus 8 tonight in Rome.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/3169070
I hope it improves markedely within the next month - going on a Med cruise at the end of March. Brrr!0 -
Recidivist said:
If we had US gun laws, Mao's observation might resonate here. Thankfully, we do not so things will be less bloody than that, at least physically.Benpointer said:
Or even that it does come down, but as the immigrants spread around the country more widely they become more noticeable.AnneJGP said:Benpointer said:
People don't need to "accurately judge" it - they just need to believe it.Ishmael_Z said:
"...if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish..."HYUFD said:
And, you know, there is no such thing as the economy as a whole. There are individual men and women, and there are families.dixiedean said:
Yes, Brexit followed by a Corbyn premiership that sees less low skilled immigration undercutting their wages and ends austerity and cuts to the public sector and is pro Union may well be in the interests of the working class, particularly the low skilled working class.HYUFD said:
Indeed many did. Although reviving heavy industry may be a stretch, decent secure longer term employment for the low skilled was important. That ties in with immigration of course.dixiedean said:
For many working class Leave voters they voted for Brexit to cut immigration and then for Corbyn to try and revive heavy industry and end austerityTGOHF said:The CBI ? Lol.
It does not seem a cri de coeur for a radical environmental policy or free trade deals with Korea.
Whether it is in the interests of the economy as a whole is another matter
Why should the low-skilled working class care about the economy as a whole, rather than themselves and their families? Nobody claims that trickle down is much of a thing any more, and if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish, they are entitled to vote accordingly without a chorus of pram-detoyers screeching "xenophobe" at them.
This is the bit that genuinely baffles me. How would restricting immigration make anyone's life less rubbish? It's a genuine question.
Yes, that's a valid point. It was the "accurately judge" that caught my eye.
There's trouble brewing though - either immigration won't come down as promised post-brexit or if it does come down it isn't going to improve the lot of anyone.0 -
You dolt. These are your words:Richard_Tyndall said:
Well clearly you are a simpleton as you fail to understand even the basics of logic and language. Of course I don't actually believe that. I just believe you said something stupid you can't now take back and are having to try to defend an idiotic comment.TOPPING said:
Nah - not even close.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope. I believe the idea is simplistic. You believe simplistic ideas as well - like the economy is the most important thing in people's lives or that GDP growth is good even when it means GDP per capita is lower.TOPPING said:
Not me, guv - Richard PB Leaver Of Note Tyndall: "They believe the rather simplistic idea that if the immigrants were not there..."
Even Leavers think Leavers are simpletons.
These are simplistic (and wrong) ideas but I would not call you a simpleton. There are far too many other terms I could use for you.
You said that the Leavers believed a simplistic idea. Ergo they are simpletons.
What I believe about the economy and GDP (pause for chuckle at your adoption of the hard left's dismissal of GDP as being any kind of relevant measure) you would take 10,000 years to understand.
"They believe the rather simplistic idea that if the immigrants were not there, there would be more jobs, more services and more houses available to them.
"It may be wrong but it is a powerful argument for people at the bottom of society."
And you say that you are not calling those people, who believe "rather simplistic" ideas, simplistic.
What a fuckwit.0 -
Global warming - ain't it COOL?Benpointer said:AndyJS said:O/T
Minus 8 tonight in Rome.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/3169070
I hope it improves markedely within the next month - going on a Med cruise at the end of March. Brrr!
0 -
I see your Ordsall Curve and raise you the new tunnels linking Finsbury Park with St Pancras station - opened just todaySandyRentool said:
Do they operate ice-breakers in the Med?Benpointer said:AndyJS said:O/T
Minus 8 tonight in Rome.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/3169070
I hope it improves markedely within the next month - going on a Med cruise at the end of March. Brrr!
0 -
arrogant twerpTOPPING said:
It's just as simple as that.Recidivist said:
You may well be right - but you are the first person I have heard saying that. I remember seeing John Redwood getting completely humiliated in an interview where he was clearly not at all well informed about some details, finally resorting to "I just want to leave." I wondered at the time if it was as simple as that.Gardenwalker said:
I’m unconvinced the mass of Brexit opinion is troubled by *any* detail of our post-Brexit status, so long as they think we are Leaving.Danny565 said:
I'm still waiting for any kind of polling evidence that trade deals were a significant motivator for Leave voters. Two different PB Brexiteers have promised it to me now, but still no sign of it.Foxy said:
Though only a tiny percent are interested in Fox's ficticious trade deals.
I even include immigration in that.
People are fed up, unhappy, not being paid enough, insecure, scared. They know that whoever they vote for at a GE, the government gets in (and they have the t-shirt to prove it), so given one chance to hit back at The Man, they took it. And who can blame them.
The tragi-comic element is seeing people who believe themselves to cut a more intellectual dash floundering when pushed as to why they voted Leave. What hurts almost more than anything is to have David Davis (David Davis!) tell them that they got it wrong and that we were sovereign all along, just that it didn't feel like it.
As you can see from this evening, even arch PB Leavers think Leavers are a bunch of simpletons.0 -
I agree, they are, but they are our fellow citizens so we shouldn't be too hard on them.ReggieCide said:
arrogant twerpTOPPING said:
It's just as simple as that.Recidivist said:
You may well be right - but you are the first person I have heard saying that. I remember seeing John Redwood getting completely humiliated in an interview where he was clearly not at all well informed about some details, finally resorting to "I just want to leave." I wondered at the time if it was as simple as that.Gardenwalker said:
I’m unconvinced the mass of Brexit opinion is troubled by *any* detail of our post-Brexit status, so long as they think we are Leaving.Danny565 said:
I'm still waiting for any kind of polling evidence that trade deals were a significant motivator for Leave voters. Two different PB Brexiteers have promised it to me now, but still no sign of it.Foxy said:
Though only a tiny percent are interested in Fox's ficticious trade deals.
I even include immigration in that.
People are fed up, unhappy, not being paid enough, insecure, scared. They know that whoever they vote for at a GE, the government gets in (and they have the t-shirt to prove it), so given one chance to hit back at The Man, they took it. And who can blame them.
The tragi-comic element is seeing people who believe themselves to cut a more intellectual dash floundering when pushed as to why they voted Leave. What hurts almost more than anything is to have David Davis (David Davis!) tell them that they got it wrong and that we were sovereign all along, just that it didn't feel like it.
As you can see from this evening, even arch PB Leavers think Leavers are a bunch of simpletons.0 -
Well immigration tends to occur into cities, which means the pre existing population heads out to the burbs and sticks more. It's all well and good, but obviously everyone needs a house or flat. The field next to old the missus' old nag is now being developed for housing (And what a message they are making of the road !), it's not really immigrants that are the issue (Their general favour for high density housing is a definite boon in my eyes) more other people in general no matter where they're fromTOPPING said:
You are having a fucking laugh aren't you? Which exact bit of open countryside is polluted by immigrants? Which exactly?Pulpstar said:I understand all the economic arguments ( And voted remain). Fundamentally though I like dark skies and open countryside. More people makes that harder to attain..
Astrophotography is also a bit of a hobby of mine. Fundamentally more people = poorer quality skies at night..
0 -
You're sinking even worse than when you claimed that house prices had fallen since the Referendum.TOPPING said:
methinks you should get thee to a thesaurus.another_richard said:
There's a difference between simplistic ideas and simpletons.TOPPING said:
Not me, guv - Richard PB Leaver Of Note Tyndall: "They believe the rather simplistic idea that if the immigrants were not there..."HYUFD said:
And in a sentence you have encapsulated why the Remain side lost the referendum!TOPPING said:
From the horse's mouth: most Leavers (as per @HYUFD's endless polls quoting immigration as the key concern) are simpletons.Richard_Tyndall said:
Because they believe (wrongly in my opinion) that immigrants are taking jobs. They also believe they are taking housing and putting a strain on vital services. They believe the rather simplistic idea that if the immigrants were not there, there would be more jobs, more services and more houses available to them.Benpointer said:
"...if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish..."Ishmael_Z said:
And, you know, there is no such thing as the economy as a whole. There are individual men and women, and there are families.HYUFD said:
Yes, Brexit followed by a Corbyn premiership that sees less low skilled immigration undercutting their wages and ends austerity and cuts to the public sector and is pro Union may well be in the interests of the working class, particularly the low skilled working class.dixiedean said:
Indeed many did. Although reviving heavy industry may be a stretch, decent secure longer term employment for the low skilled was important. That ties in with immigration of course.HYUFD said:
For many working class Leave voters they voted for Brexit to cut immigration and then for Corbyn to try and revive heavy industry and end austerity
Whether it is in the interests of the economy as a whole is another matter
Why should the low-skilled working class care about the economy as a whole, rather than themselves and their famat them.
This is the bit that genuinely baffles me. How would restricting immigration make anyone's life less rubbish? It's a genuine question.
It may be wrong but it is a powerful argument for people at the bottom of society.
Even Leavers think Leavers are simpletons.
The law of supply and demand is pretty simplistic but its at the heart of economic system.
You mean simple, not simplistic - the two are not synonymous (oh dear).0 -
In simple terms, I voted Leave because I think the EU reduces this country's independence for no good reason.TOPPING said:
It's just as simple as that.Recidivist said:
You may well be right - but you are the first person I have heard saying that. I remember seeing John Redwood getting completely humiliated in an interview where he was clearly not at all well informed about some details, finally resorting to "I just want to leave." I wondered at the time if it was as simple as that.Gardenwalker said:
I’m unconvinced the mass of Brexit opinion is troubled by *any* detail of our post-Brexit status, so long as they think we are Leaving.Danny565 said:
I'm still waiting for any kind of polling evidence that trade deals were a significant motivator for Leave voters. Two different PB Brexiteers have promised it to me now, but still no sign of it.Foxy said:
Though only a tiny percent are interested in Fox's ficticious trade deals.
I even include immigration in that.
People are fed up, unhappy, not being paid enough, insecure, scared. They know that whoever they vote for at a GE, the government gets in (and they have the t-shirt to prove it), so given one chance to hit back at The Man, they took it. And who can blame them.
The tragi-comic element is seeing people who believe themselves to cut a more intellectual dash floundering when pushed as to why they voted Leave. What hurts almost more than anything is to have David Davis (David Davis!) tell them that they got it wrong and that we were sovereign all along, just that it didn't feel like it.
As you can see from this evening, even arch PB Leavers think Leavers are a bunch of simpletons.0 -
Thank you. It's not really immigrants that are the issue. I agree entirely.Pulpstar said:
Well immigration tends to occur into cities, which means the pre existing population heads out to the burbs and sticks more. It's all well and good, but obviously everyone needs a house or flat. The field next to old the missus' old nag is now being developed for housing (And what a message they are making of the road !), it's not really immigrants that are the issue (Their general favour for high density housing is a definite boon in my eyes) more other people in general no matter where they're fromTOPPING said:
You are having a fucking laugh aren't you? Which exact bit of open countryside is polluted by immigrants? Which exactly?Pulpstar said:I understand all the economic arguments ( And voted remain). Fundamentally though I like dark skies and open countryside. More people makes that harder to attain..
Astrophotography is also a bit of a hobby of mine. Fundamentally more people = poorer quality skies at night..
But you see how even you can easily, because it rolls off the tongue/keyboard, fall into the trap of blaming immigrants for things which, simply (!), are not their fault.0 -
A Dutch migrant is perhaps less likely to migrate for welfare purposes or to access free healthcare or to get free housing or improve their earnings - they can get that if they stay where they are.Gardenwalker said:Well, unless you are arguing for completely open borders, everyone thinks there should be controls on immigration.
Likewise, no one sane thinks immigration should be zero.
It comes down to quality (skill), volumes (ability to manage) and cultural fit. The last category is where people are most squeamish, but I’m not sure why it should be controversial to say that a Dutch immigrant is more likely to assimilate than a Pakistani one. Policy should be colour blind, but perhaps not culture blind.
More poor competing against the existing poor for low wage jobs, public services and housing may be good for some but perhaps not for the existing poor.
But that isn't a problem for the I'm alright Jack remoaner classes living in the nicer parts of London and the south east who can afford to avoid the consequences and social impacts of policies they promote. So they can afford to sneer - cos it's not their problem.0 -
I think that's called the Sailaway partySandyRentool said:
Do they operate ice-breakers in the Med?Benpointer said:AndyJS said:O/T
Minus 8 tonight in Rome.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/3169070
I hope it improves markedely within the next month - going on a Med cruise at the end of March. Brrr! 0 -
You did not say 'simplistic'. You said 'simpleton'. If you have to lie about your own words you really are getting desperate.TOPPING said:
You dolt. These are your words:Richard_Tyndall said:
Well clearly you are a simpleton as you fail to understand even the basics of logic and language. Of course I don't actually believe that. I just believe you said something stupid you can't now take back and are having to try to defend an idiotic comment.TOPPING said:
Nah - not even close.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope. I believe the idea is simplistic. You believe simplistic ideas as well - like the economy is the most important thing in people's lives or that GDP growth is good even when it means GDP per capita is lower.TOPPING said:
Not me, guv - Richard PB Leaver Of Note Tyndall: "They believe the rather simplistic idea that if the immigrants were not there..."
Even Leavers think Leavers are simpletons.
These are simplistic (and wrong) ideas but I would not call you a simpleton. There are far too many other terms I could use for you.
You said that the Leavers believed a simplistic idea. Ergo they are simpletons.
What I believe about the economy and GDP (pause for chuckle at your adoption of the hard left's dismissal of GDP as being any kind of relevant measure) you would take 10,000 years to understand.
"They believe the rather simplistic idea that if the immigrants were not there, there would be more jobs, more services and more houses available to them.
"It may be wrong but it is a powerful argument for people at the bottom of society."
And you say that you are not calling those people, who believe "rather simplistic" ideas, simplistic.
What a fuckwit.
Even very clever people (and of course I don't include you in that category) can 'treat complex issues and problems as if they were much simpler than they really are'. And yes that is the very definition of simplistic. That does not make them simpletons.
Given your oft stated view of millions of people in this country I would suggest you look up the words 'arrogant prick'. Or better still, look in a mirror.0 -
Zing!! That's it - you've got me! I might resign my PB membership. House prices are growing at a lower rate and, in metropolitan, remain-voting, elitist London, are expected to fall.another_richard said:
You're sinking even worse than when you claimed that house prices had fallen since the Referendum.TOPPING said:
methinks you should get thee to a thesaurus.another_richard said:
There's a difference between simplistic ideas and simpletons.TOPPING said:
Not me, guv - Richard PB Leaver Of Note Tyndall: "They believe the rather simplistic idea that if the immigrants were not there..."HYUFD said:
And in a sentence you have encapsulated why the Remain side lost the referendum!TOPPING said:
From the horse's mouth: most Leavers (as per @HYUFD's endless polls quoting immigration as the key concern) are simpletons.Richard_Tyndall said:
Because they believe (wrongly in my opinion) that immigrants are taking jobs. They also believe they are taking housing and putting a strain on vital services. They believe the rather simplistic idea that if the immigrants were not there, there would be more jobs, more services and more houses available to them.Benpointer said:
"...if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish..."Ishmael_Z said:
And, you know, there is no such thing as the ecoHYUFD said:
Yes,dixiedean said:
Indeed many did. Although reviving heavy industry may be a stretch, decent secure longer term employment for the low skilled was important. That ties in with immigration of course.HYUFD said:
For many working class Leave voters they voted for Brexit to cut immigration and then for Corbyn to try and revive heavy industry and end austerity
Whether it is in the interests of the economy as a whole is another matter
Why should the low-skilled working class care about the economy as a whole, rather than themselves and their famat them.
This is the bit that genuinely baffles me. How would restricting immigration make anyone's life less rubbish? It's a genuine question.
It may be wrong but it is a powerful argument for people at the bottom of society.
Even Leavers think Leavers are simpletons.
The law of supply and demand is pretty simplistic but its at the heart of economic system.
You mean simple, not simplistic - the two are not synonymous (oh dear).
But hang onto that house price shocker from me if it gives you comfort.0 -
When he is in a corner any lie will do for old Topping.another_richard said:
You're sinking even worse than when you claimed that house prices had fallen since the Referendum.0 -
Only in the bars.SandyRentool said:
Do they operate ice-breakers in the Med?Benpointer said:AndyJS said:O/T
Minus 8 tonight in Rome.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/3169070
I hope it improves markedely within the next month - going on a Med cruise at the end of March. Brrr!0 -
The problem is that - while there is plenty of empirical evidence that immigration puts pressure on services - the evidence for wages is much more mixed. (And most bizarrely, in the UK, the evidence on house prices is that there is negative correlation. Periods, such as the late 90s, when there was little net EU immigration saw rapid growth, while in the aftermath of the GFC, high levels of immigration correlated with falling prices.)Ishmael_Z said:Because market forces exist. The more people applying for a job, the lower you can pitch the wages. The more applicants for social housing, the less to go round. I am baffled at your bafflement; perhaps you are overly focused on questions of race and country of origin? Immigrants are just people; immigration just happens to be the only aspect of population growth which is controllable.
But I digress.
In much of the developed world, irrespective of levels of immigration, median wages have stagnated in the last decade. This is true of Japan (essentially zero immigration), the UK (lots), and Italy (relatively little). The exceptions are Switzerland (lots), Germany (a fair bit), Canada (lots) and Australia (also lots).
But, of course, you can't read too much into these correlations either. Switzerland and Canada sucked in immigrants because of rising incomes. If there hadn't been rising incomes, would they have sucked so many people in?
The truth is - I suspect - that immigration does have an impact, particularly at the low end. The problem is that, in a globalising world where an increasing number of services and goods can be provided from afar, then the outlook for people in high cost countries, with limited skillsets, is going to be poor.0 -
You can wriggle all you like, Richard. You told us that you think Leavers believed "rather simplistic" ideas. Now, you say that doesn't make them simpletons. I of course don't know what goes on in the wide open spaces of your brain, but I do smile at your outrage at my use of the word simpleton to describe someone who, according to you, believes simplistic ideas.Richard_Tyndall said:
You did not say 'simplistic'. You said 'simpleton'. If you have to lie about your own words you really are getting desperate.TOPPING said:
You dolt. These are your words:Richard_Tyndall said:
Well clearly you are a simpleton as you fail to understand even the basics of logic and language. Of course I don't actually believe that. I just believe you said something stupid you can't now take back and are having to try to defend an idiotic comment.TOPPING said:
Nah - not even close.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope. I believe the idea is simplistic. You believe simplistic ideas as well - like the economy is the most important thing in people's lives or that GDP growth is good even when it means GDP per capita is lower.TOPPING said:
Not me, guv - Richard PB Leaver Of Note Tyndall: "They believe the rather simplistic idea that if the immigrants were not there..."
Even Leavers think Leavers are simpletons.
These are simplistic (and wrong) ideas but I would not call you a simpleton. There are far too many other terms I could use for you.
You said that the Leavers believed a simplistic idea. Ergo they are simpletons.
What I believe about the economy and GDP (pause for chuckle at your adoption of the hard left's dismissal of GDP as being any kind of relevant measure) you would take 10,000 years to understand.
"They believe the rather simplistic idea that if the immigrants were not there, there would be more jobs, more services and more houses available to them.
"It may be wrong but it is a powerful argument for people at the bottom of society."
And you say that you are not calling those people, who believe "rather simplistic" ideas, simplistic.
What a fuckwit.
Even very clever people (and of course I don't include you in that category) can 'treat complex issues and problems as if they were much simpler than they really are'. And yes that is the very definition of simplistic. That does not make them simpletons.
Given your oft stated view of millions of people in this country I would suggest you look up the words 'arrogant prick'. Or better still, look in a mirror.0 -
I completely agree. We seem to be having a nervous breakdown at the prospect of managing immigration, when it should simply be part of our economic planning (and, ha ha, our industrial strategy, whatever the hell that is). I appreciate the HO appears to be shambolic at times, but that's a process issue; the principle is sound enough.Gardenwalker said:Well, unless you are arguing for completely open borders, everyone thinks there should be controls on immigration.
Likewise, no one sane thinks immigration should be zero.
It comes down to quality (skill), volumes (ability to manage) and cultural fit. The last category is where people are most squeamish, but I’m not sure why it should be controversial to say that a Dutch immigrant is more likely to assimilate than a Pakistani one. Policy should be colour blind, but perhaps not culture blind.
Just a reminder for our younger readers (are there any?); net migration for the 18 years of Tory government was 140k, which is a tad under 8k.
It was 140k in 1998 and never dropped below that again.
0 -
Spot on. The Topping fallacy here is encapsulated in the not very funny old joke about a couple of peasants who have a horse which is just fractionally too tall to fit under a bridge so peasant A says tell you what, we'll get the farrier to take his shoes off and peasant B says What good will that do? it's his head that's the problem, not his feet.Pulpstar said:
Well immigration tends to occur into cities, which means the pre existing population heads out to the burbs and sticks more. It's all well and good, but obviously everyone needs a house or flat. The field next to old the missus' old nag is now being developed for housing (And what a message they are making of the road !), it's not really immigrants that are the issue (Their general favour for high density housing is a definite boon in my eyes) more other people in general no matter where they're fromTOPPING said:
You are having a fucking laugh aren't you? Which exact bit of open countryside is polluted by immigrants? Which exactly?Pulpstar said:I understand all the economic arguments ( And voted remain). Fundamentally though I like dark skies and open countryside. More people makes that harder to attain..
Astrophotography is also a bit of a hobby of mine. Fundamentally more people = poorer quality skies at night..
I am going to get some t shirts printed up with OUTWITTED BY SIMPLETONS and sell them on here, the PB Remainers will be mad for them.0 -
Met Office gives Rome back up to 15 deg C by Sunday. Must be just a brief mini-ice ageSunil_Prasannan said:
Global warming - ain't it COOL?Benpointer said:AndyJS said:O/T
Minus 8 tonight in Rome.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/3169070
I hope it improves markedely within the next month - going on a Med cruise at the end of March. Brrr! 0 -
I think that, as you imply, assimilation is key and what that means to each native Brit will determine his/ her view on immigration.Gardenwalker said:Well, unless you are arguing for completely open borders, everyone thinks there should be controls on immigration.
Likewise, no one sane thinks immigration should be zero.
It comes down to quality (skill), volumes (ability to manage) and cultural fit. The last category is where people are most squeamish, but I’m not sure why it should be controversial to say that a Dutch immigrant is more likely to assimilate than a Pakistani one. Policy should be colour blind, but perhaps not culture blind.0 -
It's the modern world, pal.Sean_F said:
In simple terms, I voted Leave because I think the EU reduces this country's independence for no good reason.TOPPING said:
It's just as simple as that.Recidivist said:
You may well be right - but you are the first person I have heard saying that. I remember seeing John Redwood getting completely humiliated in an interview where he was clearly not at all well informed about some details, finally resorting to "I just want to leave." I wondered at the time if it was as simple as that.Gardenwalker said:
I’m unconvinced the mass of Brexit opinion is troubled by *any* detail of our post-Brexit status, so long as they think we are Leaving.Danny565 said:
I'm still waiting for any kind of polling evidence that trade deals were a significant motivator for Leave voters. Two different PB Brexiteers have promised it to me now, but still no sign of it.Foxy said:
Though only a tiny percent are interested in Fox's ficticious trade deals.
I even include immigration in that.
People are fed up, unhappy, not being paid enough, insecure, scared. They know that whoever they vote for at a GE, the government gets in (and they have the t-shirt to prove it), so given one chance to hit back at The Man, they took it. And who can blame them.
The tragi-comic element is seeing people who believe themselves to cut a more intellectual dash floundering when pushed as to why they voted Leave. What hurts almost more than anything is to have David Davis (David Davis!) tell them that they got it wrong and that we were sovereign all along, just that it didn't feel like it.
As you can see from this evening, even arch PB Leavers think Leavers are a bunch of simpletons.
Every agreement, association, organisation reduces a country's independence. For no good reason? Well I am going to have to disagree with you on that because I believe that having a good, close relationship with a near neighbour and consumer of nearly half our external trade is a good reason.0 -
While the North Pole is having a heatwave:Benpointer said:
Met Office gives Rome back up to 15 deg C by Sunday. Must be just a brief mini-ice ageSunil_Prasannan said:
Global warming - ain't it COOL?Benpointer said:AndyJS said:O/T
Minus 8 tonight in Rome.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/3169070
I hope it improves markedely within the next month - going on a Med cruise at the end of March. Brrr!
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/9682102094275993600 -
To pick my words very carefully, in Newham more than 40% of the population now lives in the private rented sector and, according to Sir Robin Wales, three-bedroom terrace house containing 20 or more adults are far from uncommon.Gardenwalker said:Well, unless you are arguing for completely open borders, everyone thinks there should be controls on immigration.
Likewise, no one sane thinks immigration should be zero.
It comes down to quality (skill), volumes (ability to manage) and cultural fit. The last category is where people are most squeamish, but I’m not sure why it should be controversial to say that a Dutch immigrant is more likely to assimilate than a Pakistani one. Policy should be colour blind, but perhaps not culture blind.
We have created new slums for the 21st Century - yes, they aren't the same as the slums of old when they were inhabited by whole families. The modern slum is almost exclusively male and many of these are migrants, both EU and non-EU.
The problem is people from other parts of the EU who come to the UK "looking for work". Many find gainful and productive employment, no doubt, but there are undoubtedly those who fall into the black or at best grey economy not assimilating or integrating and living on a cash handout basis from which the bed in their terrace semi in Forest Gate or Canning Town has to be funded.
There are also those for whom the UK is a magnet in terms of criminality and making money illegally or through violence - only a very small number of course.
The population rise strains the infrastructure - tubes are full, the local GP sees a near 50% increase in registrations in the past three years and crime is rising at a time when Police numbers are being reduced and, like Pharaoh, we build our monuments using foreign labour.
My experience of the impact of uncontrolled migration may be atypical but it's the inevitable impact of the Single Market and the Four Freedoms - the depopulation of Lithuania, Romania and other parts of Europe for the enrichment of London, parts of the Rhineland and elsewhere.
That's not the EU I wanted.
0 -
That's a rhetorical question.Benpointer said:
"...if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish..."Ishmael_Z said:
And, you know, there is no such thing as the economy as a whole. There are individual men and women, and there are families.HYUFD said:
Yes, Brexit followed by a Corbyn premiership that sees less low skilled immigration undercutting their wages and ends austerity and cuts to the public sector and is pro Union may well be in the interests of the working class, particularly the low skilled working class.dixiedean said:
Indeed many did. Although reviving heavy industry may be a stretch, decent secure longer term employment for the low skilled was important. That ties in with immigration of course.HYUFD said:
For many working class Leave voters they voted for Brexit to cut immigration and then for Corbyn to try and revive heavy industry and end austeritydixiedean said:
Strikes me that article is more a call for the policies of Corbyn than those of Michael Gove. It criticises the deindustrialisation of the 80's and of austerity. It also states that for many life was more secure 40 years ago.TGOHF said:The CBI ? Lol.
Gove -and Harris get it. He doesn’t miss a few on here...
https://twitter.com/michaelgove/status/968203570502930436
It does not seem a cri de coeur for a radical environmental policy or free trade deals with Korea.
Whether it is in the interests of the economy as a whole is another matter
Why should the low-skilled working class care about the economy as a whole, rather than themselves and their families? Nobody claims that trickle down is much of a thing any more, and if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish, they are entitled to vote accordingly without a chorus of pram-detoyers screeching "xenophobe" at them.
This is the bit that genuinely baffles me. How would restricting immigration make anyone's life less rubbish? It's a genuine question.
Mass migration means downward pressure on wages ( for some people) and upward pressure on rents and public services (for some people). It means some people feel like strangers in the places they have lived in for a long time. And it means that restrictions on freedom of expression must be imposed, so that the immigrants can feel happier in their new country.
One can argue that those who lose out deserve their fate; and /or the greater good outweighs their concerns, but it's pointless to say that there are no losers.0 -
Many immigrants around Sherston?Ishmael_Z said:
Spot on. The Topping fallacy here is encapsulated in the not very funny old joke about a couple of peasants who have a horse which is just fractionally too tall to fit under a bridge so peasant A says tell you what, we'll get the farrier to take his shoes off and peasant B says What good will that do? it's his head that's the problem, not his feet.Pulpstar said:
Well immigration tends to occur into cities, which means the pre existing population heads out to the burbs and sticks more. It's all well and good, but obviously everyone needs a house or flat. The field next to old the missus' old nag is now being developed for housing (And what a message they are making of the road !), it's not really immigrants that are the issue (Their general favour for high density housing is a definite boon in my eyes) more other people in general no matter where they're fromTOPPING said:
You are having a fucking laugh aren't you? Which exact bit of open countryside is polluted by immigrants? Which exactly?Pulpstar said:I understand all the economic arguments ( And voted remain). Fundamentally though I like dark skies and open countryside. More people makes that harder to attain..
Astrophotography is also a bit of a hobby of mine. Fundamentally more people = poorer quality skies at night..
I am going to get some t shirts printed up with OUTWITTED BY SIMPLETONS and sell them on here, the PB Remainers will be mad for them.0 -
-
As you say, there’s little evidence to suggest that immigration *has* held down wages, even for low skilled jobs.rcs1000 said:
The problem is that - while there is plenty of empirical evidence that immigration puts pressure on services - the evidence for wages is much more mixed. (And most bizarrely, in the UK, the evidence on house prices is that there is negative correlation. Periods, such as the late 90s, when there was little net EU immigration saw rapid growth, while in the aftermath of the GFC, high levels of immigration correlated with falling prices.)Ishmael_Z said:Because market forces exist. The more people applying for a job, the lower you can pitch the wages. The more applicants for social housing, the less to go round. I am baffled at your bafflement; perhaps you are overly focused on questions of race and country of origin? Immigrants are just people; immigration just happens to be the only aspect of population growth which is controllable.
But I digress.
In much of the developed world, irrespective of levels of immigration, median wages have stagnated in the last decade. This is true of Japan (essentially zero immigration), the UK (lots), and Italy (relatively little). The exceptions are Switzerland (lots), Germany (a fair bit), Canada (lots) and Australia (also lots).
But, of course, you can't read too much into these correlations either. Switzerland and Canada sucked in immigrants because of rising incomes. If there hadn't been rising incomes, would they have sucked so many people in?
The truth is - I suspect - that immigration does have an impact, particularly at the low end. The problem is that, in a globalising world where an increasing number of services and goods can be provided from afar, then the outlook for people in high cost countries, with limited skillsets, is going to be poor.
However, the constant references to “car washers” on here seem to imply a subtly different problem: that the easy reliance on cheap, unskilled labour has stifled productivity growth.
Higher productivity growth would of course in turn manifest as higher wages, but the effect is more indirect than simple labour demand/supply and perhaps academics haven’t been looking at it.0 -
Clearly Caroline Flint is worried about Con gain Don Valley.
https://twitter.com/CarolineFlintMP/status/9682080279574609920 -
It's a choice one makes, dressed up as something which is inevitable.TOPPING said:
It's the modern world, pal.Sean_F said:
In simple terms, I voted Leave because I think the EU reduces this country's independence for no good reason.TOPPING said:
It's just as simple as that.Recidivist said:
You may well be right - but you are the first person I have heard saying that. I remember seeing John Redwood getting completely humiliated in an interview where he was clearly not at all well informed about some details, finally resorting to "I just want to leave." I wondered at the time if it was as simple as that.Gardenwalker said:
I’m unconvinced the mass of Brexit opinion is troubled by *any* detail of our post-Brexit status, so long as they think we are Leaving.Danny565 said:
I'm still waiting for any kind of polling evidence that trade deals were a significant motivator for Leave voters. Two different PB Brexiteers have promised it to me now, but still no sign of it.Foxy said:
Though only a tiny percent are interested in Fox's ficticious trade deals.
I even include immigration in that.
People are fed up, unhappy, not being paid enough, insecure, scared. They know that whoever they vote for at a GE, the government gets in (and they have the t-shirt to prove it), so given one chance to hit back at The Man, they took it. And who can blame them.
The tragi-comic element is seeing people who believe themselves to cut a more intellectual dash floundering when pushed as to why they voted Leave. What hurts almost more than anything is to have David Davis (David Davis!) tell them that they got it wrong and that we were sovereign all along, just that it didn't feel like it.
As you can see from this evening, even arch PB Leavers think Leavers are a bunch of simpletons.
Every agreement, association, organisation reduces a country's independence. For no good reason? Well I am going to have to disagree with you on that because I believe that having a good, close relationship with a near neighbour and consumer of nearly half our external trade is a good reason.
You make your choice. I make mine.0 -
singular?TOPPING said:
I agree, they are, but they are our fellow citizens so we shouldn't be too hard on them.ReggieCide said:
arrogant twerpTOPPING said:
It's just as simple as that.Recidivist said:
You may well be right - but you are the first person I have heard saying that. I remember seeing John Redwood getting completely humiliated in an interview where he was clearly not at all well informed about some details, finally resorting to "I just want to leave." I wondered at the time if it was as simple as that.Gardenwalker said:
I’m unconvinced the mass of Brexit opinion is troubled by *any* detail of our post-Brexit status, so long as they think we are Leaving.Danny565 said:
I'm still waiting for any kind of polling evidence that trade deals were a significant motivator for Leave voters. Two different PB Brexiteers have promised it to me now, but still no sign of it.Foxy said:
Though only a tiny percent are interested in Fox's ficticious trade deals.
I even include immigration in that.
People are fed up, unhappy, not being paid enough, insecure, scared. They know that whoever they vote for at a GE, the government gets in (and they have the t-shirt to prove it), so given one chance to hit back at The Man, they took it. And who can blame them.
The tragi-comic element is seeing people who believe themselves to cut a more intellectual dash floundering when pushed as to why they voted Leave. What hurts almost more than anything is to have David Davis (David Davis!) tell them that they got it wrong and that we were sovereign all along, just that it didn't feel like it.
As you can see from this evening, even arch PB Leavers think Leavers are a bunch of simpletons.0 -
Completely off topic...
We're in London Weds/Thurs (trains permitting) for an overnighter to see Iolanthe at the Coliseum - got an afternoon and a morning spare... anyone recommend any exhibitions worth visiting? Cheers!0 -
And Kim Jong-un makes his.Sean_F said:
It's a choice one makes, dressed up as something which is inevitable.TOPPING said:
It's the modern world, pal.Sean_F said:
In simple terms, I voted Leave because I think the EU reduces this country's independence for no good reason.TOPPING said:
It's just as simple as that.Recidivist said:
You may well be right - but you are the first person I have heard saying that. I remember seeing John Redwood getting completely humiliated in an interview where he was clearly not at all well informed about some details, finally resorting to "I just want to leave." I wondered at the time if it was as simple as that.Gardenwalker said:
I’m unconvinced the mass of Brexit opinion is troubled by *any* detail of our post-Brexit status, so long as they think we are Leaving.Danny565 said:
I'm still waiting for any kind of polling evidence that trade deals were a significant motivator for Leave voters. Two different PB Brexiteers have promised it to me now, but still no sign of it.Foxy said:
Though only a tiny percent are interested in Fox's ficticious trade deals.
I even include immigration in that.
People are fed up, unhappy, not being paid enough, insecure, scared. They know that whoever they vote for at a GE, the government gets in (and they have the t-shirt to prove it), so given one chance to hit back at The Man, they took it. And who can blame them.
The tragi-comic element is seeing people who believe themselves to cut a more intellectual dash floundering when pushed as to why they voted Leave. What hurts almost more than anything is to have David Davis (David Davis!) tell them that they got it wrong and that we were sovereign all along, just that it didn't feel like it.
As you can see from this evening, even arch PB Leavers think Leavers are a bunch of simpletons.
Every agreement, association, organisation reduces a country's independence. For no good reason? Well I am going to have to disagree with you on that because I believe that having a good, close relationship with a near neighbour and consumer of nearly half our external trade is a good reason.
You make your choice. I make mine.0 -
Have you been to the Galloway Forest? Free.of light pollution of not of cloud cover. Galloway generally a very worthwhile place to visit.Pulpstar said:
Well immigration tends to occur into cities, which means the pre existing population heads out to the burbs and sticks more. It's all well and good, but obviously everyone needs a house or flat. The field next to old the missus' old nag is now being developed for housing (And what a message they are making of the road !), it's not really immigrants that are the issue (Their general favour for high density housing is a definite boon in my eyes) more other people in general no matter where they're fromTOPPING said:
You are having a fucking laugh aren't you? Which exact bit of open countryside is polluted by immigrants? Which exactly?Pulpstar said:I understand all the economic arguments ( And voted remain). Fundamentally though I like dark skies and open countryside. More people makes that harder to attain..
Astrophotography is also a bit of a hobby of mine. Fundamentally more people = poorer quality skies at night..
http://scotland.forestry.gov.uk/forest-parks/galloway-forest-park/dark-skies0 -
This really is a popcorn week for Brexit-watchers!calum said:0 -
Which means that increasing the number of people with limited skillsets is going to have negative economic effects.rcs1000 said:
The problem is that - while there is plenty of empirical evidence that immigration puts pressure on services - the evidence for wages is much more mixed. (And most bizarrely, in the UK, the evidence on house prices is that there is negative correlation. Periods, such as the late 90s, when there was little net EU immigration saw rapid growth, while in the aftermath of the GFC, high levels of immigration correlated with falling prices.)Ishmael_Z said:Because market forces exist. The more people applying for a job, the lower you can pitch the wages. The more applicants for social housing, the less to go round. I am baffled at your bafflement; perhaps you are overly focused on questions of race and country of origin? Immigrants are just people; immigration just happens to be the only aspect of population growth which is controllable.
But I digress.
In much of the developed world, irrespective of levels of immigration, median wages have stagnated in the last decade. This is true of Japan (essentially zero immigration), the UK (lots), and Italy (relatively little). The exceptions are Switzerland (lots), Germany (a fair bit), Canada (lots) and Australia (also lots).
But, of course, you can't read too much into these correlations either. Switzerland and Canada sucked in immigrants because of rising incomes. If there hadn't been rising incomes, would they have sucked so many people in?
The truth is - I suspect - that immigration does have an impact, particularly at the low end. The problem is that, in a globalising world where an increasing number of services and goods can be provided from afar, then the outlook for people in high cost countries, with limited skillsets, is going to be poor.
As these extra people are also less likely to integrate well than more skilled immigrants then there will also be negative social effects.
Re house prices - the late 1990s house price increases were encouraged by the fall in house prices in the early 1990s, increasing levels of employment and pay and things such as building society windfalls. House building was also at low levels then as well.
Similar causes were behind the late 1980s house price increases.0 -
There's more than just you, you know.ReggieCide said:
singular?TOPPING said:
I agree, they are, but they are our fellow citizens so we shouldn't be too hard on them.ReggieCide said:
arrogant twerpTOPPING said:
It's just as simple as that.Recidivist said:
You may well be right - but you are the first person I have heard saying that. I remember seeing John Redwood getting completely humiliated in an interview where he was clearly not at all well informed about some details, finally resorting to "I just want to leave." I wondered at the time if it was as simple as that.Gardenwalker said:
I’m unconvinced the mass of Brexit opinion is troubled by *any* detail of our post-Brexit status, so long as they think we are Leaving.Danny565 said:
I'm still waiting for any kind of polling evidence that trade deals were a significant motivator for Leave voters. Two different PB Brexiteers have promised it to me now, but still no sign of it.Foxy said:
Though only a tiny percent are interested in Fox's ficticious trade deals.
I even include immigration in that.
People are fed up, unhappy, not being paid enough, insecure, scared. They know that whoever they vote for at a GE, the government gets in (and they have the t-shirt to prove it), so given one chance to hit back at The Man, they took it. And who can blame them.
The tragi-comic element is seeing people who believe themselves to cut a more intellectual dash floundering when pushed as to why they voted Leave. What hurts almost more than anything is to have David Davis (David Davis!) tell them that they got it wrong and that we were sovereign all along, just that it didn't feel like it.
As you can see from this evening, even arch PB Leavers think Leavers are a bunch of simpletons.0 -
Population decline in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Romania and Bulgaria correlates with the collapse of communism, not EU accession.stodge said:My experience of the impact of uncontrolled migration may be atypical but it's the inevitable impact of the Single Market and the Four Freedoms - the depopulation of Lithuania, Romania and other parts of Europe for the enrichment of London, parts of the Rhineland and elsewhere
0 -
So it is about immigrants coming over here and taking our jobs. But I don't get it. Richard Tyndall thinks this is a simplistic view.another_richard said:
Which means that increasing the number of people with limited skillsets is going to have negative economic effects.rcs1000 said:
The problem is that - while there is plenty of empirical evidence that immigration puts pressure on services - the evidence for wages is much more mixed. (And most bizarrely, in the UK, the evidence on house prices is that there is negative correlation. Periods, such as the late 90s, when there was little net EU immigration saw rapid growth, while in the aftermath of the GFC, high levels of immigration correlated with falling prices.)Ishmael_Z said:Because market forces exist. The more people applying for a job, the lower you can pitch the wages. The more applicants for social housing, the less to go round. I am baffled at your bafflement; perhaps you are overly focused on questions of race and country of origin? Immigrants are just people; immigration just happens to be the only aspect of population growth which is controllable.
But I digress.
In much of the developed world, irrespective of levels of immigration, median wages have stagnated in the last decade. This is true of Japan (essentially zero immigration), the UK (lots), and Italy (relatively little). The exceptions are Switzerland (lots), Germany (a fair bit), Canada (lots) and Australia (also lots).
But, of course, you can't read too much into these correlations either. Switzerland and Canada sucked in immigrants because of rising incomes. If there hadn't been rising incomes, would they have sucked so many people in?
The truth is - I suspect - that immigration does have an impact, particularly at the low end. The problem is that, in a globalising world where an increasing number of services and goods can be provided from afar, then the outlook for people in high cost countries, with limited skillsets, is going to be poor.
As these extra people are also less likely to integrate well than more skilled immigrants then there will also be negative social effects.
Re house prices - the late 1990s house price increases were encouraged by the fall in house prices in the early 1990s, increasing levels of employment and pay and things such as building society windfalls. House building was also at low levels then as well.
Similar causes were behind the late 1980s house price increases.
Now you are not a simpleton, obvs, but it is a conundrum nevertheless.0 -
You get a live view of one of the great natural disasters - London and snow.Benpointer said:Completely off topic...
We're in London Weds/Thurs (trains permitting) for an overnighter to see Iolanthe at the Coliseum - got an afternoon and a morning spare... anyone recommend any exhibitions worth visiting? Cheers!0 -
Although it’s pretty clear that it was Immigration “wot won it” let’s not forget there’s always been a strong strain of Eurosceptism in the country that predates the very high levels of immigration we saw post 97.TOPPING said:
So it is about immigrants coming over here and taking our jobs. But I don't get it. Richard Tyndall thinks this is a simplistic view.another_richard said:
Which means that increasing the number of people with limited skillsets is going to have negative economic effects.rcs1000 said:
The problem is that - while there is plenty of empirical evidence that immigration puts pressure on services - the evidence for wages is much more mixed. (And most bizarrely, in the UK, the evidence on house prices is that there is negative correlation. Periods, such as the late 90s, when there was little net EU immigration saw rapid growth, while in the aftermath of the GFC, high levels of immigration correlated with falling prices.)Ishmael_Z said:Because market forces exist. The more people applying for a job, the lower you can pitch the wages. The more applicants for social housing, the less to go round. I am baffled at your bafflement; perhaps you are overly focused on questions of race and country of origin? Immigrants are just people; immigration just happens to be the only aspect of population growth which is controllable.
But I digress.
In much of the developed world, irrespective of levels of immigration, median wages have stagnated in the last decade. This is true of Japan (essentially zero immigration), the UK (lots), and Italy (relatively little). The exceptions are Switzerland (lots), Germany (a fair bit), Canada (lots) and Australia (also lots).
But, of course, you can't read too much into these correlations either. Switzerland and Canada sucked in immigrants because of rising incomes. If there hadn't been rising incomes, would they have sucked so many people in?
The truth is - I suspect - that immigration does have an impact, particularly at the low end. The problem is that, in a globalising world where an increasing number of services and goods can be provided from afar, then the outlook for people in high cost countries, with limited skillsets, is going to be poor.
As these extra people are also less likely to integrate well than more skilled immigrants then there will also be negative social effects.
Re house prices - the late 1990s house price increases were encouraged by the fall in house prices in the early 1990s, increasing levels of employment and pay and things such as building society windfalls. House building was also at low levels then as well.
Similar causes were behind the late 1980s house price increases.
Now you are not a simpleton, obvs, but it is a conundrum nevertheless.0 -
@faisalislam: ... and meanwhile Sir John Major is also planning an intervention on Wednesday - we haven’t heard much from him since he heavily criticised the then prospect of a Tory-DUP deal re n Irish peace0
-
Not yet, I took a holiday last year near St Clears/ Llangynin in Wales though. A very pretty part of the UK. I hope Galloway and Kielder keep their darkness though - unfortunately the Milky Way isn't all that visible from Surprise View between Sheffield and Manchester these days in my opinion.FF43 said:
Have you been to the Galloway Forest? Free.of light pollution of not of cloud cover. Galloway generally a very worthwhile place to visit.Pulpstar said:
Well immigration tends to occur into cities, which means the pre existing population heads out to the burbs and sticks more. It's all well and good, but obviously everyone needs a house or flat. The field next to old the missus' old nag is now being developed for housing (And what a message they are making of the road !), it's not really immigrants that are the issue (Their general favour for high density housing is a definite boon in my eyes) more other people in general no matter where they're fromTOPPING said:
You are having a fucking laugh aren't you? Which exact bit of open countryside is polluted by immigrants? Which exactly?Pulpstar said:I understand all the economic arguments ( And voted remain). Fundamentally though I like dark skies and open countryside. More people makes that harder to attain..
Astrophotography is also a bit of a hobby of mine. Fundamentally more people = poorer quality skies at night..
http://scotland.forestry.gov.uk/forest-parks/galloway-forest-park/dark-skies0 -
Haha - seen it once or twice before during many years working in London. I am looking for an alternative to Mrs. P's propsoed shopping expeditionanother_richard said:
You get a live view of one of the great natural disasters - London and snow.Benpointer said:Completely off topic...
We're in London Weds/Thurs (trains permitting) for an overnighter to see Iolanthe at the Coliseum - got an afternoon and a morning spare... anyone recommend any exhibitions worth visiting? Cheers! 0 -
I think you've replied to the wrong comment.TOPPING said:
So it is about immigrants coming over here and taking our jobs. But I don't get it. Richard Tyndall thinks this is a simplistic view.another_richard said:
Which means that increasing the number of people with limited skillsets is going to have negative economic effects.rcs1000 said:
The problem is that - while there is plenty of empirical evidence that immigration puts pressure on services - the evidence for wages is much more mixed. (And most bizarrely, in the UK, the evidence on house prices is that there is negative correlation. Periods, such as the late 90s, when there was little net EU immigration saw rapid growth, while in the aftermath of the GFC, high levels of immigration correlated with falling prices.)Ishmael_Z said:Because market forces exist. The more people applying for a job, the lower you can pitch the wages. The more applicants for social housing, the less to go round. I am baffled at your bafflement; perhaps you are overly focused on questions of race and country of origin? Immigrants are just people; immigration just happens to be the only aspect of population growth which is controllable.
But I digress.
In much of the developed world, irrespective of levels of immigration, median wages have stagnated in the last decade. This is true of Japan (essentially zero immigration), the UK (lots), and Italy (relatively little). The exceptions are Switzerland (lots), Germany (a fair bit), Canada (lots) and Australia (also lots).
But, of course, you can't read too much into these correlations either. Switzerland and Canada sucked in immigrants because of rising incomes. If there hadn't been rising incomes, would they have sucked so many people in?
The truth is - I suspect - that immigration does have an impact, particularly at the low end. The problem is that, in a globalising world where an increasing number of services and goods can be provided from afar, then the outlook for people in high cost countries, with limited skillsets, is going to be poor.
As these extra people are also less likely to integrate well than more skilled immigrants then there will also be negative social effects.
Re house prices - the late 1990s house price increases were encouraged by the fall in house prices in the early 1990s, increasing levels of employment and pay and things such as building society windfalls. House building was also at low levels then as well.
Similar causes were behind the late 1980s house price increases.
Now you are not a simpleton, obvs, but it is a conundrum nevertheless.
Perhaps you should call it a night Toppo I fear you've either had too much or too little.0 -
I daresay he does.TOPPING said:
And Kim Jong-un makes his.Sean_F said:
It's a choice one makes, dressed up as something which is inevitable.TOPPING said:
It's the modern world, pal.Sean_F said:
In simple terms, I voted Leave because I think the EU reduces this country's independence for no good reason.TOPPING said:
It's just as simple as that.Recidivist said:
You may well be right - but you are the first person I have heard saying that. I remember seeing John Redwood getting completely humiliated in an interview where he was clearly not at all well informed about some details, finally resorting to "I just want to leave." I wondered at the time if it was as simple as that.Gardenwalker said:
I’m unconvinced the mass of Brexit opinion is troubled by *any* detail of our post-Brexit status, so long as they think we are Leaving.Danny565 said:
I'm still waiting for any kind of polling evidence that trade deals were a significant motivator for Leave voters. Two different PB Brexiteers have promised it to me now, but still no sign of it.Foxy said:
Though only a tiny percent are interested in Fox's ficticious trade deals.
I even include immigration in that.
People are fed up, unhappy, not being paid enough, insecure, scared. They know that whoever they vote for at a GE, the government gets in (and they have the t-shirt to prove it), so given one chance to hit back at The Man, they took it. And who can blame them.
The tragi-comic element is seeing people who believe themselves to cut a more intellectual dash floundering when pushed as to why they voted Leave. What hurts almost more than anything is to have David Davis (David Davis!) tell them that they got it wrong and that we were sovereign all along, just that it didn't feel like it.
As you can see from this evening, even arch PB Leavers think Leavers are a bunch of simpletons.
Every agreement, association, organisation reduces a country's independence. For no good reason? Well I am going to have to disagree with you on that because I believe that having a good, close relationship with a near neighbour and consumer of nearly half our external trade is a good reason.
You make your choice. I make mine.
But, there are many states between complete economic integration with one's neighbours and complete isolationism. It's not a binary choice.0 -
Of course. Mild scepticism was probably however the predominant view until people were asked to put those views into focus. The flim-flam on immigration by Leavers is just an amusing side-show.Gardenwalker said:
Although it’s pretty clear that it was Immigration “wot won it” let’s not forget there’s always been a strong strain of Eurosceptism in the country that predates the very high levels of immigration we saw post 97.TOPPING said:
So it is about immigrants coming over here and taking our jobs. But I don't get it. Richard Tyndall thinks this is a simplistic view.another_richard said:
Which means that increasing the number of people with limited skillsets is going to have negative economic effects.rcs1000 said:
The problem is that - while ty (a fair bit), Canada (lots) and Australia (also lots).Ishmael_Z said:Because market forces exist. The more people applying for a job, the lower you can pitch the wages. The more applicants for social housing, the less to go round. I am baffled at your bafflement; perhaps you are overly focused on questions of race and country of origin? Immigrants are just people; immigration just happens to be the only aspect of population growth which is controllable.
But, of course, you can't read too much into these correlations either. Switzerland and Canada sucked in immigrants because of rising incomes. If there hadn't been rising incomes, would they have sucked so many people in?
The truth is - I suspect - that immigration does have an impact, particularly at the low end. The problem is that, in a globalising world where an increasing number of services and goods can be provided from afar, then the outlook for people in high cost countries, with limited skillsets, is going to be poor.
As these extra people are also less likely to integrate well than more skilled immigrants then there will also be negative social effects.
Re house prices - the late 1990s house price increases were encouraged by the fall in house prices in the early 1990s, increasing levels of employment and pay and things such as building society windfalls. House building was also at low levels then as well.
Similar causes were behind the late 1980s house price increases.
Now you are not a simpleton, obvs, but it is a conundrum nevertheless.0 -
Not exactly. Only 3% named it as the main news story (the question required them to pick one story).MikeL said:A reminder to everyone on here who attaches far too much importance to news stories.
We were told the public didn't care about the Corbyn "Czech spy story" - well guess what - only 3% of people are even aware of the story - irrespective of what they think of it.
The detail of what Corbyn said today won't matter in the slightest. All that could matter is if there is a perception that he is moving in a way that people like / dislike.
https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK?original_referer=http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/03/04/the-latest-batch-of-ashcroft-marginals-polling-finds/&tw_i=573192912663650304&tw_p=tweetembed0 -
Sozza.another_richard said:
I think you've replied to the wrong comment.TOPPING said:
So it is about immigrants coming over here and taking our jobs. But I don't get it. Richard Tyndall thinks this is a simplistic view.another_richard said:
Which means that increasing the number of people with limited skillsets is going to have negative economic effects.rcs1000 said:
The problem is that - while thereIshmael_Z said:Because market forces exist. The more people applying for a job, the lower you can pitch the wages. The more applicants for social housing, the less to go round. I am baffled at your bafflement; perhaps you are overly focused on questions of race and country of origin? Immigrants are just people; immigration just happens to be the only aspect of population growth which is controllable.
In much of the developed world, irrespective of levels of immigration, median wages have stagnated in the last decade. This is true of Japan (essentially zero immigration), the UK (lots), and Italy (relatively little). The exceptions are Switzerland (lots), Germany (a fair bit), Canada (lots) and Australia (also lots).
But, of course, you can't read too much into these correlations either. Switzerland and Canada sucked in immigrants because of rising incomes. If there hadn't been rising incomes, would they have sucked so many people in?
The truth is - I suspect - that immigration does have an impact, particularly at the low end. The problem is that, in a globalising world where an increasing number of services and goods can be provided from afar, then the outlook for people in high cost countries, with limited skillsets, is going to be poor.
As these extra people are also less likely to integrate well than more skilled immigrants then there will also be negative social effects.
Re house prices - the late 1990s house price increases were encouraged by the fall in house prices in the early 1990s, increasing levels of employment and pay and things such as building society windfalls. House building was also at low levels then as well.
Similar causes were behind the late 1980s house price increases.
Now you are not a simpleton, obvs, but it is a conundrum nevertheless.
Perhaps you should call it a night Toppo I fear you've either had too much or too little.
I took your comment: "Which means that increasing the number of people with limited skillsets is going to have negative economic effects" to refer to low-skilled EU immigration and hence had thought my reply relevant.0 -
LOLFoxy said:
While the North Pole is having a heatwave:Benpointer said:
Met Office gives Rome back up to 15 deg C by Sunday. Must be just a brief mini-ice ageSunil_Prasannan said:
Global warming - ain't it COOL?Benpointer said:AndyJS said:O/T
Minus 8 tonight in Rome.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/3169070
I hope it improves markedely within the next month - going on a Med cruise at the end of March. Brrr!
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/968210209427599360
You should read your links.
"While there are no direct measurements of temperature there, Zack Labe, a climate scientist working on his PhD at the University of California at Irvine, confirmed that several independent analyses showed “it was very close to freezing,”
So basically they have modelled this but not actually measured it.
Right.0 -
Who is proposing that we don't value the good, close relationship you believe in? We just don't want to be in their club and the more they try to punish us for wanting to leave the more they prejudice a good, close future relationship!TOPPING said:
It's the modern world, pal.Sean_F said:
In simple terms, I voted Leave because I think the EU reduces this country's independence for no good reason.TOPPING said:
It's just as simple as that.Recidivist said:
You may well be right - but you are the first person I have heard saying that. I remember seeing John Redwood getting completely humiliated in an interview where he was clearly not at all well informed about some details, finally resorting to "I just want to leave." I wondered at the time if it was as simple as that.Gardenwalker said:
I’m unconvinced the mass of Brexit opinion is troubled by *any* detail of our post-Brexit status, so long as they think we are Leaving.Danny565 said:
I'm still waiting for any kind of polling evidence that trade deals were a significant motivator for Leave voters. Two different PB Brexiteers have promised it to me now, but still no sign of it.Foxy said:
Though only a tiny percent are interested in Fox's ficticious trade deals.
I even include immigration in that.
People are fed up, unhappy, not being paid enough, insecure, scared. They know that whoever they vote for at a GE, the government gets in (and they have the t-shirt to prove it), so given one chance to hit back at The Man, they took it. And who can blame them.
The tragi-comic element is seeing people who believe themselves to cut a more intellectual dash floundering when pushed as to why they voted Leave. What hurts almost more than anything is to have David Davis (David Davis!) tell them that they got it wrong and that we were sovereign all along, just that it didn't feel like it.
As you can see from this evening, even arch PB Leavers think Leavers are a bunch of simpletons.
Every agreement, association, organisation reduces a country's independence. For no good reason? Well I am going to have to disagree with you on that because I believe that having a good, close relationship with a near neighbour and consumer of nearly half our external trade is a good reason.0 -
It's all got a bit Punch & Judy on here again tonight (oh no it hasnt!; oh yes it has!)
Is that because none of us (Leavers or Remainers) are feeling prticularly happy about the state of play?0 -
We don't want to be in a federal superstate, that's for sure. But then we had taken precautions to ensure that we wouldn't be. But that's a pre-referendum discussion.ReggieCide said:
Who is proposing that we don't value the good, close relationship you believe in? We just don't want to be in their club and the more they try to punish us for wanting to leave the more they prejudice a good, close future relationship!TOPPING said:
It's the modern world, pal.Sean_F said:
In simple terms, I voted Leave because I think the EU reduces this country's independence for no good reason.TOPPING said:
It's just as simple as that.Recidivist said:
You may well be right - but you are the first person I have heard saying that. I remember seeing John Redwood getting completely humiliated in an interview where he was clearly not at all well informed about some details, finally resorting to "I just want to leave." I wondered at the time if it was as simple as that.Gardenwalker said:
I’m unconvinced the mass of Brexit opinion is troubled by *any* detail of our post-Brexit status, so long as they think we are Leaving.Danny565 said:
I'm still waiting for any kind of polling evidence that trade deals were a significant motivator for Leave voters. Two different PB Brexiteers have promised it to me now, but still no sign of it.Foxy said:
Though only a tiny percent are interested in Fox's ficticious trade deals.
I even include immigration in that.
People are fed up, unhappy, not being paid enough, insecure, scared. They know that whoever they vote for at a GE, the government gets in (and they have the t-shirt to prove it), so given one chance to hit back at The Man, they took it. And who can blame them.
The tragi-comic element is seeing people who believe themselves to cut a more intellectual dash floundering when pushed as to why they voted Leave. What hurts almost more than anything is to have David Davis (David Davis!) tell them that they got it wrong and that we were sovereign all along, just that it didn't feel like it.
As you can see from this evening, even arch PB Leavers think Leavers are a bunch of simpletons.
Every agreement, association, organisation reduces a country's independence. For no good reason? Well I am going to have to disagree with you on that because I believe that having a good, close relationship with a near neighbour and consumer of nearly half our external trade is a good reason.0 -
Presumably if the Baltics et al were so convinced that the EU was causing a population exodus, they would be in favour of leaving the EU or perhaps getting rid of FOM.williamglenn said:
Population decline in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Romania and Bulgaria correlates with the collapse of communism, not EU accession.stodge said:My experience of the impact of uncontrolled migration may be atypical but it's the inevitable impact of the Single Market and the Four Freedoms - the depopulation of Lithuania, Romania and other parts of Europe for the enrichment of London, parts of the Rhineland and elsewhere
But they aren’t.0 -
However, even she supports the Customs Union stance.TheScreamingEagles said:Clearly Caroline Flint is worried about Con gain Don Valley.
https://twitter.com/CarolineFlintMP/status/9682080279574609920 -
In which case the best word to describe you is ignoramus as you seem incapable of actually looking up what two words mean and realising the difference between them.TOPPING said:You can wriggle all you like, Richard. You told us that you think Leavers believed "rather simplistic" ideas. Now, you say that doesn't make them simpletons. I of course don't know what goes on in the wide open spaces of your brain, but I do smile at your outrage at my use of the word simpleton to describe someone who, according to you, believes simplistic ideas.
Like I said, if you have to resort to lying about what you wrote then you have clearly lost the argument and the plot.0 -
Indeed Euroscepticism was high in the early Eighties, when there was a popular show about boozed up British builders living in a multiple occupancy hostel in the EU:Gardenwalker said:
Although it’s pretty clear that it was Immigration “wot won it” let’s not forget there’s always been a strong strain of Eurosceptism in the country that predates the very high levels of immigration we saw post 97.TOPPING said:
So it is about immigrants coming over here and taking our jobs. But I don't get it. Richard Tyndall thinks this is a simplistic view.another_richard said:
Which means that increasing the number of people with limited skillsets is going to have negative economic effects.rcs1000 said:
The problem is that - while there is plenty of empirical evidence that immigration puts pressure on services - the evidence for wages is much more mixed. (And most bizarrely, in the UK, the evidence on house prices is that there is negative correlation. Periods, such as the late 90s, when there was little net EU immigration saw rapid growth, while in the aftermath of the GFC, high levels of immigration correlated with falling prices.)Ishmael_Z said:Because market forces exist. The more people applying for a job, the lower you can pitch the wages. The more applicants for social housing, the less to go round. I am baffled at your bafflement; perhaps you are overly focused on questions of race and country of origin? Immigrants are just people; immigration just happens to be the only aspect of population growth which is controllable.
But I digress.
In much of the developed world, irrespective of levels of immigration, median wages have stagnated in the last decade. This is true of Japan (essentially zero immigration), the UK (lots), and Italy (relatively little). The exceptions are Switzerland (lots), Germany (a fair bit), Canada (lots) and Australia (also lots).
But, of course, you can't read too much into these correlations either. Switzerland and Canada sucked in immigrants because of rising incomes. If there hadn't been rising incomes, would they have sucked so many people in?
The truth is - I suspect - that immigration does have an impact, particularly at the low end. The problem is that, in a globalising world where an increasing number of services and goods can be provided from afar, then the outlook for people in high cost countries, with limited skillsets, is going to be poor.
As these extra people are also less likely to integrate well than more skilled immigrants then there will also be negative social effects.
Similar causes were behind the late 1980s house price increases.
Now you are not a simpleton, obvs, but it is a conundrum nevertheless.
https://youtu.be/3tklaMNH7IA0 -
I thought it was just Tories getting a bit stressed because Jezza has got one over on them today.Benpointer said:It's all got a bit Punch & Judy on here again tonight (oh no it hasnt!; oh yes it has!)
Is that because none of us (Leavers or Remainers) are feeling prticularly happy about the state of play?
Of course, this will probably result in a poll boost for the Conservatives just to confound us all (again).0 -
There were certainly plenty of people wanting to leave the country during those 18 years.John_M said:
I completely agree. We seem to be having a nervous breakdown at the prospect of managing immigration, when it should simply be part of our economic planning (and, ha ha, our industrial strategy, whatever the hell that is). I appreciate the HO appears to be shambolic at times, but that's a process issue; the principle is sound enough.Gardenwalker said:Well, unless you are arguing for completely open borders, everyone thinks there should be controls on immigration.
Likewise, no one sane thinks immigration should be zero.
It comes down to quality (skill), volumes (ability to manage) and cultural fit. The last category is where people are most squeamish, but I’m not sure why it should be controversial to say that a Dutch immigrant is more likely to assimilate than a Pakistani one. Policy should be colour blind, but perhaps not culture blind.
Just a reminder for our younger readers (are there any?); net migration for the 18 years of Tory government was 140k, which is a tad under 8k.
It was 140k in 1998 and never dropped below that again.0 -
In the Baltic states the trend is clearly driven primarily by ethnic Russians emigrating.Gardenwalker said:
Presumably if the Baltics et al were so convinced that the EU was causing a population exodus, they would be in favour of leaving the EU or perhaps getting rid of FOM.williamglenn said:
Population decline in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Romania and Bulgaria correlates with the collapse of communism, not EU accession.stodge said:My experience of the impact of uncontrolled migration may be atypical but it's the inevitable impact of the Single Market and the Four Freedoms - the depopulation of Lithuania, Romania and other parts of Europe for the enrichment of London, parts of the Rhineland and elsewhere
But they aren’t.
0 -
That's rich coming from youTOPPING said:
There's more than just you, you know.ReggieCide said:
singular?TOPPING said:
I agree, they are, but they are our fellow citizens so we shouldn't be too hard on them.ReggieCide said:
arrogant twerpTOPPING said:
It's just as simple as that.Recidivist said:
You may well be right - but you are the first person I have heard saying that. I remember seeing John Redwood getting completely humiliated in an interview where he was clearly not at all well informed about some details, finally resorting to "I just want to leave." I wondered at the time if it was as simple as that.Gardenwalker said:
I’m unconvinced the mass of Brexit opinion is troubled by *any* detail of our post-Brexit status, so long as they think we are Leaving.Danny565 said:
I'm still waiting for any kind of polling evidence that trade deals were a significant motivator for Leave voters. Two different PB Brexiteers have promised it to me now, but still no sign of it.Foxy said:
Though only a tiny percent are interested in Fox's ficticious trade deals.
I even include immigration in that.
People are fed up, unhappy, not being paid enough, insecure, scared. They know that whoever they vote for at a GE, the government gets in (and they have the t-shirt to prove it), so given one chance to hit back at The Man, they took it. And who can blame them.
The tragi-comic element is seeing people who believe themselves to cut a more intellectual dash floundering when pushed as to why they voted Leave. What hurts almost more than anything is to have David Davis (David Davis!) tell them that they got it wrong and that we were sovereign all along, just that it didn't feel like it.
As you can see from this evening, even arch PB Leavers think Leavers are a bunch of simpletons.0 -
I am not happy with Corbyn's ideas that is true. But my back and forth is because I genuinely believe that Topping is an arrogant prick who uses dishonesty in place of rational argument.Benpointer said:It's all got a bit Punch & Judy on here again tonight (oh no it hasnt!; oh yes it has!)
Is that because none of us (Leavers or Remainers) are feeling prticularly happy about the state of play?0 -
We're not talking about what I wrote, sweetpea, but about what you wrote.Richard_Tyndall said:
In which case the best word to describe you is ignoramus as you seem incapable of actually looking up what two words mean and realising the difference between them.TOPPING said:You can wriggle all you like, Richard. You told us that you think Leavers believed "rather simplistic" ideas. Now, you say that doesn't make them simpletons. I of course don't know what goes on in the wide open spaces of your brain, but I do smile at your outrage at my use of the word simpleton to describe someone who, according to you, believes simplistic ideas.
Like I said, if you have to resort to lying about what you wrote then you have clearly lost the argument and the plot.
You wrote that Leavers believed "rather simplistic ideas". Then you go off on one at me because I say that this is essentially calling them simpletons.
You then wriggle, and you are still wriggling.0 -
I think everyone is worn down with it.Benpointer said:It's all got a bit Punch & Judy on here again tonight (oh no it hasnt!; oh yes it has!)
Is that because none of us (Leavers or Remainers) are feeling prticularly happy about the state of play?
Its a malaise which affects the political situation over much of the first world.0 -
Where or what the fuck is Sherston?TOPPING said:
Many immigrants around Sherston?
There are virtually no immigrants at all within 10 miles of where I live, if that's the question, and if there were they wouldn't be competing with me for anything (except parking spaces). The thing is, I make an effort to understand the motivations of people in different circumstances from me rather than indulge in this I'm alright Jack pointing at them and laughing which you think is so clever and attractive.0 -
Yup.Danny565 said:
However, even she supports the Customs Union stance.TheScreamingEagles said:Clearly Caroline Flint is worried about Con gain Don Valley.
https://twitter.com/CarolineFlintMP/status/968208027957460992
I think the stat keeps on getting forgotten is that whilst a majority of Labour seats voted Leave, a majority of Labour votes backed Remain.
I think Corbyn's biggest achievement today is to look pragmatic in contrast to the Tories.0 -
communism = enforced, unprotected copulation. I had wondered about Jeremy's motivation.williamglenn said:
Population decline in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Romania and Bulgaria correlates with the collapse of communism, not EU accession.stodge said:My experience of the impact of uncontrolled migration may be atypical but it's the inevitable impact of the Single Market and the Four Freedoms - the depopulation of Lithuania, Romania and other parts of Europe for the enrichment of London, parts of the Rhineland and elsewhere
0 -
classic displacement.Richard_Tyndall said:
I am not happy with Corbyn's ideas that is true. But my back and forth is because I genuinely believe that Topping is an arrogant prick who uses dishonesty in place of rational argument.Benpointer said:It's all got a bit Punch & Judy on here again tonight (oh no it hasnt!; oh yes it has!)
Is that because none of us (Leavers or Remainers) are feeling prticularly happy about the state of play?0 -
The problems are (variously) that the government is inept and divided, that the Opposition is worse, that some Remainers want to see this country punished for the way that it voted, and that some Brexiteers are only happy when they're in opposition, and would prefer see Brexit fall, if it's not their Brexit.Benpointer said:It's all got a bit Punch & Judy on here again tonight (oh no it hasnt!; oh yes it has!)
Is that because none of us (Leavers or Remainers) are feeling prticularly happy about the state of play?0 -
Labour proposes it, the CBI likes it. Only really needs a Polly Toynbee endorsement now for the ultimate trifecta of shit.0
-
Its clearly caused by Latvians emigrating too. That's a marked and accelerating drop in the Latvian population there - let alone having natural population growth which should be expected in normal circumstances.williamglenn said:
In the Baltic states the trend is clearly driven primarily by ethnic Russians emigrating.Gardenwalker said:
Presumably if the Baltics et al were so convinced that the EU was causing a population exodus, they would be in favour of leaving the EU or perhaps getting rid of FOM.williamglenn said:
Population decline in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Romania and Bulgaria correlates with the collapse of communism, not EU accession.stodge said:My experience of the impact of uncontrolled migration may be atypical but it's the inevitable impact of the Single Market and the Four Freedoms - the depopulation of Lithuania, Romania and other parts of Europe for the enrichment of London, parts of the Rhineland and elsewhere
But they aren’t.0 -
0
-
According to Mortimer, the Baltic states should be happy with their reducing populations: their versions of Mr "Restricted Supply of workers drives higher wages" and Mrs "Less competition for scarce public services" will be delightedGardenwalker said:
Presumably if the Baltics et al were so convinced that the EU was causing a population exodus, they would be in favour of leaving the EU or perhaps getting rid of FOM.williamglenn said:
Population decline in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Romania and Bulgaria correlates with the collapse of communism, not EU accession.stodge said:My experience of the impact of uncontrolled migration may be atypical but it's the inevitable impact of the Single Market and the Four Freedoms - the depopulation of Lithuania, Romania and other parts of Europe for the enrichment of London, parts of the Rhineland and elsewhere
But they aren’t. 0 -
Danny565 said:
However, even she supports the Customs Union stance.TheScreamingEagles said:Clearly Caroline Flint is worried about Con gain Don Valley.
https://twitter.com/CarolineFlintMP/status/968208027957460992
Chukka wants it to be the route to staying in the SM. It's as far as Flint will go on CU/SM I expect. So there looks to me to be a majority in the commons for a CU but not SM (So long as the Tories can maintain some semblance of discipline)Danny565 said:
However, even she supports the Customs Union stance.TheScreamingEagles said:Clearly Caroline Flint is worried about Con gain Don Valley.
https://twitter.com/CarolineFlintMP/status/9682080279574609920 -
Don't you keep banging on about how you go with the Beaufort?Ishmael_Z said:
Where or what the fuck is Sherston?TOPPING said:
Many immigrants around Sherston?
There are virtually no immigrants at all within 10 miles of where I live, if that's the question, and if there were they wouldn't be competing with me for anything (except parking spaces). The thing is, I make an effort to understand the motivations of people in different circumstances from me rather than indulge in this I'm alright Jack pointing at them and laughing which you think is so clever and attractive.
And as @Pulpstar has agreed, he didn't mean what he said when he said he thought immigrants would somehow make (access to? availability of?) open countryside more difficult. So I was examining his motivations and we agreed that it was nothing to do with immigration.
This is the gift that keeps giving and in this instance, is perfect for you:
thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/man-claims-hius-life-being-ruined-by-immigration-but-cant-explain-how-201702271229320 -
precautions = marginalisationTOPPING said:
We don't want to be in a federal superstate, that's for sure. But then we had taken precautions to ensure that we wouldn't be. But that's a pre-referendum discussion.ReggieCide said:
Who is proposing that we don't value the good, close relationship you believe in? We just don't want to be in their club and the more they try to punish us for wanting to leave the more they prejudice a good, close future relationship!TOPPING said:
It's the modern world, pal.Sean_F said:
In simple terms, I voted Leave because I think the EU reduces this country's independence for no good reason.TOPPING said:
It's just as simple as that.Recidivist said:
You may well be right - but you are the first person I have heard saying that. I remember seeing John Redwood getting completely humiliated in an interview where he was clearly not at all well informed about some details, finally resorting to "I just want to leave." I wondered at the time if it was as simple as that.Gardenwalker said:
I’m unconvinced the mass of Brexit opinion is troubled by *any* detail of our post-Brexit status, so long as they think we are Leaving.Danny565 said:
I'm still waiting for any kind of polling evidence that trade deals were a significant motivator for Leave voters. Two different PB Brexiteers have promised it to me now, but still no sign of it.Foxy said:
Though only a tiny percent are interested in Fox's ficticious trade deals.
I even include immigration in that.
People are fed up, unhappy, not being paid enough, insecure, scared. They know that whoever they vote for at a GE, the government gets in (and they have the t-shirt to prove it), so given one chance to hit back at The Man, they took it. And who can blame them.
The tragi-comic element is seeing people who believe themselves to cut a more intellectual dash floundering when pushed as to why they voted Leave. What hurts almost more than anything is to have David Davis (David Davis!) tell them that they got it wrong and that we were sovereign all along, just that it didn't feel like it.
As you can see from this evening, even arch PB Leavers think Leavers are a bunch of simpletons.
Every agreement, association, organisation reduces a country's independence. For no good reason? Well I am going to have to disagree with you on that because I believe that having a good, close relationship with a near neighbour and consumer of nearly half our external trade is a good reason.0 -
Two minute warning, team, then I'm heading off.
Go for it.0 -
My comment was in response to Robert's and referred to the type of immigrant.TOPPING said:
Sozza.another_richard said:
I think you've replied to the wrong comment.TOPPING said:
So it is about immigrants coming over here and taking our jobs. But I don't get it. Richard Tyndall thinks this is a simplistic view.another_richard said:
Which means that increasing the number of people with limited skillsets is going to have negative economic effects.rcs1000 said:
The problem is that - while there
In much of the developed world, irrespective of levels of immigration, median wages have stagnated in the last decade. This is true of Japan (essentially zero immigration), the UK (lots), and Italy (relatively little). The exceptions are Switzerland (lots), Germany (a fair bit), Canada (lots) and Australia (also lots).
But, of course, you can't read too much into these correlations either. Switzerland and Canada sucked in immigrants because of rising incomes. If there hadn't been rising incomes, would they have sucked so many people in?
The truth is - I suspect - that immigration does have an impact, particularly at the low end. The problem is that, in a globalising world where an increasing number of services and goods can be provided from afar, then the outlook for people in high cost countries, with limited skillsets, is going to be poor.
As these extra people are also less likely to integrate well than more skilled immigrants then there will also be negative social effects.
Re house prices - the late 1990s house price increases were encouraged by the fall in house prices in the early 1990s, increasing levels of employment and pay and things such as building society windfalls. House building was also at low levels then as well.
Similar causes were behind the late 1980s house price increases.
Now you are not a simpleton, obvs, but it is a conundrum nevertheless.
Perhaps you should call it a night Toppo I fear you've either had too much or too little.
I took your comment: "Which means that increasing the number of people with limited skillsets is going to have negative economic effects" to refer to low-skilled EU immigration and hence had thought my reply relevant.
So the more limited the skillset in the more high cost the country will not even be 'taking jobs' but be dependent upon welfare.0 -
@Sean_F -
If you listened to some on here,you would think we don't get any bad immigration.
I use to believe that the tories were the one's on those who lose out deserve their fate but the last twenty years the labour party have taken that prize.0 -
hmm - so now we are going to be out we'll be fairly marginalised. And, as Robert has noted, will take years to recreate, for example, the trade deals that we had and had a hand in devising.ReggieCide said:
precautions = marginalisationTOPPING said:
We don't want to be in a federal superstate, that's for sure. But then we had taken precautions to ensure that we wouldn't be. But that's a pre-referendum discussion.ReggieCide said:
Who is proposing that we don't value the good, close relationship you believe in? We just don't want to be in their club and the more they try to punish us for wanting to leave the more they prejudice a good, close future relationship!TOPPING said:
It's the modern world, pal.Sean_F said:
In simple terms, I voted Leave because I think the EU reduces this country's independence for no good reason.TOPPING said:
It's just as simple as that.Recidivist said:
You may well be right - but you are the first p leave." I wondered at the time if it was as simple as that.Gardenwalker said:
I’m unconvinced the mass of Brexit opinion is troubled by *any* detail of our post-Brexit status, so long as they think we are Leaving.Danny565 said:
I'me now, but still no sign of it.Foxy said:
Though only a tiny percent are interested in Fox's ficticious trade deals.
I even include immigration in that.
People are fed up, unhappy, not being paid enough, insecure, scared. They know that whoever they vote for at a GE, the government gets in (and they have the t-shirt to prove it), so given one chance to hit back at The Man, they took it. And who can blame them.
The tragi-comic element is seeing people who believe themselves to cut a more intellectual dash floundering when pushed as to why they voted Leave. What hurts almost more than anything is to have David Davis (David Davis!) tell them that they got it wrong and that we were sovereign all along, just that it didn't feel like it.
As you can see from this evening, even arch PB Leavers think Leavers are a bunch of simpletons.
Every agreement, association, organisation reduces a country's independence. For no good reason? Well I am going to have to disagree with you on that because I believe that having a good, close relationship with a near neighbour and consumer of nearly half our external trade is a good reason.0 -
Another possible indirect consequence of this is that the EU might start being more obstructionist in their negotiations with the government, in the hope/expectation of hastening its downfall, and bringing about what they see as a more sensible approach from Labour.0
-
Do you want a moment to edit that? Because I'm not sure it makes sense.another_richard said:
My comment was in response to Robert's and referred to the type of immigrant.TOPPING said:
Sozza.another_richard said:
I think you've replied to the wrong comment.TOPPING said:
So it is about immigrants coming over here and taking our jobs. But I don't get it. Richard Tyndall thinks this is a simplistic view.another_richard said:
Which means that increasing the number of people with limited skillsets is going to have negative economic effects.rcs1000 said:
The problem is that - while there
In much of the developed world, irrespective of levels of immigration, median wages have stagnated in the last decade. This is true of Japan (essentially zero immigration), the UK (lots), and Italy (relatively little). The exceptions are Switzerland (lots), Germany (a fair bit), Canada (lots) and Australia (also lots).
But, of course, you can't read too much into these correlations either. Switzerland and Canada sucked in immigrants because of rising incomes. If there hadn't been rising incomes, would they have sucked so many people in?
The truth is - I suspect - that immigration does have an impact, particularly at the low end. The problem is that, in a globalising world where an increasing number of services and goods can be provided from afar, then the outlook for people in high cost countries, with limited skillsets, is going to be poor.
As these extra people are also less likely to integrate well than more skilled immigrants then there will also be negative social effects.
Re house prices - the late 1990s house price increases were encouraged by the fall in house prices in the early 1990s, increasing levels of employment and pay and things such as building society windfalls. House building was also at low levels then as well.
Similar causes were behind the late 1980s house price increases.
Now you are not a simpleton, obvs, but it is a conundrum nevertheless.
Perhaps you should call it a night Toppo I fear you've either had too much or too little.
I took your comment: "Which means that increasing the number of people with limited skillsets is going to have negative economic effects" to refer to low-skilled EU immigration and hence had thought my reply relevant.
So the more limited the skillset in the more high cost the country will not even be 'taking jobs' but be dependent upon welfare.
I'll hang around a minute or two longer if you want.
Or are you saying that it is a different kind of immigration, not the "other" type of immigration. Or...0 -
Corrected for youReggieCide said:
precautions brexit = marginalisationTOPPING said:
We don't want to be in a federal superstate, that's for sure. But then we had taken precautions to ensure that we wouldn't be. But that's a pre-referendum discussion.ReggieCide said:
Who is proposing that we don't value the good, close relationship you believe in? We just don't want to be in their club and the more they try to punish us for wanting to leave the more they prejudice a good, close future relationship!TOPPING said:
It's the modern world, pal.Sean_F said:
In simple terms, I voted Leave because I think the EU reduces this country's independence for no good reason.TOPPING said:
It's just as simple as that.Recidivist said:
You may well be right - but you are the first person I have heard saying that. I remember seeing John Redwood getting completely humiliated in an interview where he was clearly not at all well informed about some details, finally resorting to "I just want to leave." I wondered at the time if it was as simple as that.Gardenwalker said:
I’m unconvinced the mass of Brexit opinion is troubled by *any* detail of our post-Brexit status, so long as they think we are Leaving.Danny565 said:
I'm still waiting for any kind of polling evidence that trade deals were a significant motivator for Leave voters. Two different PB Brexiteers have promised it to me now, but still no sign of it.Foxy said:
Though only a tiny percent are interested in Fox's ficticious trade deals.
I even include immigration in that.
People are fed up, unhappy, not being paid enough, insecure, scared. They know that whoever they vote for at a GE, the government gets in (and they have the t-shirt to prove it), so given one chance to hit back at The Man, they took it. And who can blame them.
The tragi-comic element is seeing people who believe themselves to cut a more intellectual dash floundering when pushed as to why they voted Leave. What hurts almost more than anything is to have David Davis (David Davis!) tell them that they got it wrong and that we were sovereign all along, just that it didn't feel like it.
As you can see from this evening, even arch PB Leavers think Leavers are a bunch of simpletons.
Every agreement, association, organisation reduces a country's independence. For no good reason? Well I am going to have to disagree with you on that because I believe that having a good, close relationship with a near neighbour and consumer of nearly half our external trade is a good reason.0 -
-
No, I have said exactly once that I have hunted with the Beaufort, and motorised horse transport is a thing.TOPPING said:
Don't you keep banging on about how you go with the Beaufort?Ishmael_Z said:
Where or what the fuck is Sherston?TOPPING said:
Many immigrants around Sherston?
There are virtually no immigrants at all within 10 miles of where I live, if that's the question, and if there were they wouldn't be competing with me for anything (except parking spaces). The thing is, I make an effort to understand the motivations of people in different circumstances from me rather than indulge in this I'm alright Jack pointing at them and laughing which you think is so clever and attractive.
And as @Pulpstar has agreed, he didn't mean what he said when he said he thought immigrants would somehow make (access to? availability of?) open countryside more difficult. So I was examining his motivations and we agreed that it was nothing to do with immigration.
This is the gift that keeps giving and in this instance, is perfect for you:
thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/man-claims-hius-life-being-ruined-by-immigration-but-cant-explain-how-20170227122932
I think that on any given evening you should either drink, or (exclusive or) post because Pulpstar won the argument you think you won, and I have just clearly said that I *don't* see any way that immigrants do or could ruin my life.0 -
The prospects for the Baltic States are frightening, unless people start returning in large numbers. What's strange is that they are great places to live in.Philip_Thompson said:
Its clearly caused by Latvians emigrating too. That's a marked and accelerating drop in the Latvian population there - let alone having natural population growth which should be expected in normal circumstances.williamglenn said:
In the Baltic states the trend is clearly driven primarily by ethnic Russians emigrating.Gardenwalker said:
Presumably if the Baltics et al were so convinced that the EU was causing a population exodus, they would be in favour of leaving the EU or perhaps getting rid of FOM.williamglenn said:
Population decline in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Romania and Bulgaria correlates with the collapse of communism, not EU accession.stodge said:My experience of the impact of uncontrolled migration may be atypical but it's the inevitable impact of the Single Market and the Four Freedoms - the depopulation of Lithuania, Romania and other parts of Europe for the enrichment of London, parts of the Rhineland and elsewhere
But they aren’t.0 -
I mean in the EU we had some opt-outs and some never will opt-ins and that, in @ReggieCide's view, is marginalisation which he said as though it was a bad thing.Benpointer said:
Corrected for youReggieCide said:
precautionsbrexit = marginalisationTOPPING said:
We don't want to be in a federal superstate, that's for sure. But then we had taken precautions to ensure that we wouldn't be. But that's a pre-referendum discussion.ReggieCide said:
Who is proposing that we don't value the good, close relationship you believe in? We just don't want to be in their club and the more they try to punish us for wanting to leave the more they prejudice a good, close future relationship!TOPPING said:
It's the modern world, pal.Sean_F said:
In simple terms, I voted Leave because I think the EU reduces this country's independence for no good reason.TOPPING said:
It's just as simple as that.Recidivist said:
as that.Gardenwalker said:
I’m unconvinced the mass of Brexit opinion is troubled by *any* detail of our post-Brexit status, so long as they think we are Leaving.Danny565 said:
I'm still waiting for any kind of polling evidence that trade deals were a significant motivator for Leave voters. Two different PB Brexiteers have promised it to me now, but still no sign of it.Foxy said:
Though only a tiny percent are interested in Fox's ficticious trade deals.
I even include immigration in that.
People are fed up, unhappy, not being paid enough, insecure, scared. They know that whoever they vote for at a GE, the government gets in (and they have the t-shirt to prove it), so given one chance to hit back at The Man, they took it. And who can blame them.
The tragi-comic element is seeing people who believe themselves to cut a more intellectual dash floundering when pushed as to why they voted Leave. What hurts almost more than anything is to have David Davis (David Davis!) tell them that they got it wrong and that we were sovereign all along, just that it didn't feel like it.
As you can see from this evening, even arch PB Leavers think Leavers are a bunch of simpletons.
Every agreement, association, organisation reduces a country's independence. For no good reason? Well I am going to have to disagree with you on that because I believe that having a good, close relationship with a near neighbour and consumer of nearly half our external trade is a good reason.
So he prefers to be out of the EU altogether which will what...solve the marginalisation issue??0 -
People were saying the exact same thing ten years ago.Luckyguy1983 said:Labour proposes it, the CBI likes it. Only really needs a Polly Toynbee endorsement now for the ultimate trifecta of shit.
Only it was about David Miliband becoming Prime Minister.0 -
The number of Labour Leave voters per constituency compared with the Labour majority would be interesting to know.TheScreamingEagles said:
Yup.Danny565 said:
However, even she supports the Customs Union stance.TheScreamingEagles said:Clearly Caroline Flint is worried about Con gain Don Valley.
https://twitter.com/CarolineFlintMP/status/968208027957460992
I think the stat keeps on getting forgotten is that whilst a majority of Labour seats voted Leave, a majority of Labour votes backed Remain.
I think Corbyn's biggest achievement today is to look pragmatic in contrast to the Tories.0
This discussion has been closed.