GPs only initial provide a sick note (or fit note as it is now named in Orwellian fashion).
If someone needs to be off long term sick and claim ESA benefit then GP is nothing to do with it after the initial short period. Sunak says crack new specialist teams will assess people. They already do you ignorant twat. In fact your government pays them millions every year to do these assessments which ill and disabled people loath because they are so utterly shite and badly carried out.
Even Johnson was better than this spreadsheet loving idiot.
Are they the same as the crack army of supply teachers who would break strikes? We have full employment. There isn't a body of specialist anyone available. Especially on the pittance a Tory government with no concept of market forces offers.
So increase wages, increase productivity, let unproductive businesses that can't cope with higher wages go out of business and let living standards improve because we are earning more as we're more productive.
That's the only way to reach an equilibrium.
Importing more people to fill vacancies no more works than importing people allows them to "steal jobs". More people = more demand = more need for employment. There is no fixed number of jobs in a country, jobs are proportional to population, its wages that determines equilibrium not quantity of people.
We have six staff, which we struggle with as it is. We had two off sick today and one with an appointment this morning. So staffed at 50%. All three of us were assaulted more than once today. My eye was bleeding. We were told no supply was available. Our employer is the government. They are trying to impose a 2% settlement this year. It can't go on like this. Statutory documents are being broken every day. It simply isn't safe.
Yes and how do you change that.
Importing more people to fill the jobs imports more people's kids who need places at schools, which then means more people need to fill the jobs that your colleagues already struggle to fill. Its a never ending loop that can't be broken as jobs and population are proportional to each other.
I'm perfectly fine with immigration, at any volume. It could go up from where it is now and I wouldn't care, but it wouldn't fill any employment gap as it can't, its not possible to do so, since jobs and population are in proportion to each other.
Or we could pay yourself and your colleagues a decent wage that attracts people to fill those vacancies, instead of other jobs, and other less productive and less necessary job roles die off and we reach a new equilibrium.
The problem isn't free movement, or the lack thereof. The problem is paying less than what is required to fill the roles and a 2% settlement makes the problem worse too.
Do you disagree with any of that?
I never mentioned immigration. We need paying properly for the role we do. Ànd less lecturing that we are layabouts leeching off the "productive" sectors.
I agree you need paying properly for the role you do, which is what I said. Hence I started my original response to you with: So increase wages ...
"We can't fill vacancies" = "we can't fill vacancies at these wages". That's a problem that can be fixed, its just a fix that some people don't want to take.
(Do people still get given Carriage Clocks when they retire? Either way, seems like a significant pool of untapped labour.)
Depends on who you mean by 'carriage clock'.
If its early retirees then why should they - they've worked and saved their money so that they can now afford to stop work and use the extra free time while they're still healthy.
If its oldies in receipt of state pensions then you'd be better off cutting the money the government spends on them - but there's little chance of that happening.
The significance of the EU offer is that it shows that the EU gained more from dumping its surplus young people on the UK than the UK did.
If it was something that the UK gained more from then the EU wouldn't want it back.
In an age of declining birth rates, worldwide, no one is "dumping surplus young people" you pillock. Young people are much in demand. This is the EU genuinely offering to let our young people freely move around the EU so that theirs can come here and learn English etc. Reintroducing the social dynamism we lost with Brexit (which I regretted even as I voted Leave)
It comes with strings attached, it will be a negotiation, but it is - prima facie - a win for the UK because so many more young people want to come to London and learn English in a world city, as against the other way round
The era of Polish plumbers yearning to live and work in Bradford or Cumbernauld is over. Have you not been to Krakow recently?
GPs only initial provide a sick note (or fit note as it is now named in Orwellian fashion).
If someone needs to be off long term sick and claim ESA benefit then GP is nothing to do with it after the initial short period. Sunak says crack new specialist teams will assess people. They already do you ignorant twat. In fact your government pays them millions every year to do these assessments which ill and disabled people loath because they are so utterly shite and badly carried out.
Even Johnson was better than this spreadsheet loving idiot.
Are they the same as the crack army of supply teachers who would break strikes? We have full employment. There isn't a body of specialist anyone available. Especially on the pittance a Tory government with no concept of market forces offers.
So increase wages, increase productivity, let unproductive businesses that can't cope with higher wages go out of business and let living standards improve because we are earning more as we're more productive.
That's the only way to reach an equilibrium.
Importing more people to fill vacancies no more works than importing people allows them to "steal jobs". More people = more demand = more need for employment. There is no fixed number of jobs in a country, jobs are proportional to population, its wages that determines equilibrium not quantity of people.
We have six staff, which we struggle with as it is. We had two off sick today and one with an appointment this morning. So staffed at 50%. All three of us were assaulted more than once today. My eye was bleeding. We were told no supply was available. Our employer is the government. They are trying to impose a 2% settlement this year. It can't go on like this. Statutory documents are being broken every day. It simply isn't safe.
Yes and how do you change that.
Importing more people to fill the jobs imports more people's kids who need places at schools, which then means more people need to fill the jobs that your colleagues already struggle to fill. Its a never ending loop that can't be broken as jobs and population are proportional to each other.
I'm perfectly fine with immigration, at any volume. It could go up from where it is now and I wouldn't care, but it wouldn't fill any employment gap as it can't, its not possible to do so, since jobs and population are in proportion to each other.
Or we could pay yourself and your colleagues a decent wage that attracts people to fill those vacancies, instead of other jobs, and other less productive and less necessary job roles die off and we reach a new equilibrium.
The problem isn't free movement, or the lack thereof. The problem is paying less than what is required to fill the roles and a 2% settlement makes the problem worse too.
Do you disagree with any of that?
Question - how do we pay people more when the people buying their products / services can't afford them now?
In theory? Yes - pay more. In practice? Even when people point at awful employers like Asda and say "they are very rich", you then look behind the curtain and see a mountain of VC debt. Capitalism says "let them go bust" and as one-offs that is absolutely what should happen. But with so many businesses drowning in debt they can barely service, what happens when they all fail? In theory they get replaced by new businesses. Sure, In practice? Too many bankruptcies and we crash into a deep recession and get even poorer...
Answer - some businesses go bust, and bust businesses no longer need employees, then we have a new equilibrium and the employee shortage no longer exists.
They don't all need to fail, only the unproductive ones that can't afford wages at the equilibrium point need to fail.
Surviving businesses have employees. Employees have better wages. The country is more productive and better off per capita.
GPs only initial provide a sick note (or fit note as it is now named in Orwellian fashion).
If someone needs to be off long term sick and claim ESA benefit then GP is nothing to do with it after the initial short period. Sunak says crack new specialist teams will assess people. They already do you ignorant twat. In fact your government pays them millions every year to do these assessments which ill and disabled people loath because they are so utterly shite and badly carried out.
Even Johnson was better than this spreadsheet loving idiot.
Are they the same as the crack army of supply teachers who would break strikes? We have full employment. There isn't a body of specialist anyone available. Especially on the pittance a Tory government with no concept of market forces offers.
So increase wages, increase productivity, let unproductive businesses that can't cope with higher wages go out of business and let living standards improve because we are earning more as we're more productive.
That's the only way to reach an equilibrium.
Importing more people to fill vacancies no more works than importing people allows them to "steal jobs". More people = more demand = more need for employment. There is no fixed number of jobs in a country, jobs are proportional to population, its wages that determines equilibrium not quantity of people.
We have six staff, which we struggle with as it is. We had two off sick today and one with an appointment this morning. So staffed at 50%. All three of us were assaulted more than once today. My eye was bleeding. We were told no supply was available. Our employer is the government. They are trying to impose a 2% settlement this year. It can't go on like this. Statutory documents are being broken every day. It simply isn't safe.
Yes and how do you change that.
Importing more people to fill the jobs imports more people's kids who need places at schools, which then means more people need to fill the jobs that your colleagues already struggle to fill. Its a never ending loop that can't be broken as jobs and population are proportional to each other.
I'm perfectly fine with immigration, at any volume. It could go up from where it is now and I wouldn't care, but it wouldn't fill any employment gap as it can't, its not possible to do so, since jobs and population are in proportion to each other.
Or we could pay yourself and your colleagues a decent wage that attracts people to fill those vacancies, instead of other jobs, and other less productive and less necessary job roles die off and we reach a new equilibrium.
The problem isn't free movement, or the lack thereof. The problem is paying less than what is required to fill the roles and a 2% settlement makes the problem worse too.
Do you disagree with any of that?
I never mentioned immigration. We need paying properly for the role we do. Ànd less lecturing that we are layabouts leeching off the "productive" sectors.
I agree you need paying properly for the role you do, which is what I said. Hence I started my original response to you with: So increase wages ...
"We can't fill vacancies" = "we can't fill vacancies at these wages". That's a problem that can be fixed, its just a fix that some people don't want to take.
It's a route the Tory Party won't take. We have lost two of our best TA's already just this term, it's four days old. One to a call centre and one to a factory production line. Both on £300+ a month extra. And neither assaulted on a daily basis. 12 years experience lost. And both could hack it. It's just pay. Yet when we ask for £3 k a year extra we are told we're greedy and it's unaffordable.
The significance of the EU offer is that it shows that the EU gained more from dumping its surplus young people on the UK than the UK did.
If it was something that the UK gained more from then the EU wouldn't want it back.
In an age of declining birth rates, worldwide, no one is "dumping surplus young people" you pillock. Young people are much in demand. This is the EU genuinely offering to let our young people freely move around tje EU so that theirs can come here and learn English etc. Reintroducing the social dynamism we lost with Brexit (which I regretted even as I voted Leave)
It comes with strings attached, it will be a negotiation, but it is - prima facie - a win for the UK because so many more young people want to come to London and learn English in a world city, than the other way round
The era of Polush plumbers yearning to live and work in Bradford or Cumbernauld is over. Have you not been to Krakow recently?
Perhaps you should look at youth unemployment rates before you expose your ignorance.
Spain 28% Italy 23% France 18%
And there's nothing to stop the UK letting in young people with the required skillsets now.
GPs only initial provide a sick note (or fit note as it is now named in Orwellian fashion).
If someone needs to be off long term sick and claim ESA benefit then GP is nothing to do with it after the initial short period. Sunak says crack new specialist teams will assess people. They already do you ignorant twat. In fact your government pays them millions every year to do these assessments which ill and disabled people loath because they are so utterly shite and badly carried out.
Even Johnson was better than this spreadsheet loving idiot.
Are they the same as the crack army of supply teachers who would break strikes? We have full employment. There isn't a body of specialist anyone available. Especially on the pittance a Tory government with no concept of market forces offers.
So increase wages, increase productivity, let unproductive businesses that can't cope with higher wages go out of business and let living standards improve because we are earning more as we're more productive.
That's the only way to reach an equilibrium.
Importing more people to fill vacancies no more works than importing people allows them to "steal jobs". More people = more demand = more need for employment. There is no fixed number of jobs in a country, jobs are proportional to population, its wages that determines equilibrium not quantity of people.
We have six staff, which we struggle with as it is. We had two off sick today and one with an appointment this morning. So staffed at 50%. All three of us were assaulted more than once today. My eye was bleeding. We were told no supply was available. Our employer is the government. They are trying to impose a 2% settlement this year. It can't go on like this. Statutory documents are being broken every day. It simply isn't safe.
Yes and how do you change that.
Importing more people to fill the jobs imports more people's kids who need places at schools, which then means more people need to fill the jobs that your colleagues already struggle to fill. Its a never ending loop that can't be broken as jobs and population are proportional to each other.
I'm perfectly fine with immigration, at any volume. It could go up from where it is now and I wouldn't care, but it wouldn't fill any employment gap as it can't, its not possible to do so, since jobs and population are in proportion to each other.
Or we could pay yourself and your colleagues a decent wage that attracts people to fill those vacancies, instead of other jobs, and other less productive and less necessary job roles die off and we reach a new equilibrium.
The problem isn't free movement, or the lack thereof. The problem is paying less than what is required to fill the roles and a 2% settlement makes the problem worse too.
Do you disagree with any of that?
I never mentioned immigration. We need paying properly for the role we do. Ànd less lecturing that we are layabouts leeching off the "productive" sectors.
I agree you need paying properly for the role you do, which is what I said. Hence I started my original response to you with: So increase wages ...
"We can't fill vacancies" = "we can't fill vacancies at these wages". That's a problem that can be fixed, its just a fix that some people don't want to take.
It's a route the Tory Party won't take. We have lost two of our best TA's already just this term, it's four days old. One to a call centre and one to a factory production line. Both on £300+ a month extra. And neither assaulted on a daily basis. 12 years experience lost. And both could hack it. It's just pay. Yet when we ask for £3 k a year extra we are told we're greedy and it's unaffordable.
What's your point?
I'm agreeing with you that pay needs to change. I'm agreeing with you the Tories need to go.
The solution to the problem is to pay the right wage for the right job. Paying below equilibrium leads to "employee shortages" and demand is more than supply, and paying above equilibrium leads to unemployment as supply exceeds demand.
Currently we're in the former position. It used to be the latter in this country, but its not right now, hence why we have so much vacancies and not much unemployment.
Changing the quantity of people is an irrelevant factor, since jobs are in proportion to population. The only way to solve the shortage is to raise pay to the point that people take those jobs and unproductive jobs die off and are left permanently unfilled.
GPs only initial provide a sick note (or fit note as it is now named in Orwellian fashion).
If someone needs to be off long term sick and claim ESA benefit then GP is nothing to do with it after the initial short period. Sunak says crack new specialist teams will assess people. They already do you ignorant twat. In fact your government pays them millions every year to do these assessments which ill and disabled people loath because they are so utterly shite and badly carried out.
Even Johnson was better than this spreadsheet loving idiot.
Are they the same as the crack army of supply teachers who would break strikes? We have full employment. There isn't a body of specialist anyone available. Especially on the pittance a Tory government with no concept of market forces offers.
So increase wages, increase productivity, let unproductive businesses that can't cope with higher wages go out of business and let living standards improve because we are earning more as we're more productive.
That's the only way to reach an equilibrium.
Importing more people to fill vacancies no more works than importing people allows them to "steal jobs". More people = more demand = more need for employment. There is no fixed number of jobs in a country, jobs are proportional to population, its wages that determines equilibrium not quantity of people.
We have six staff, which we struggle with as it is. We had two off sick today and one with an appointment this morning. So staffed at 50%. All three of us were assaulted more than once today. My eye was bleeding. We were told no supply was available. Our employer is the government. They are trying to impose a 2% settlement this year. It can't go on like this. Statutory documents are being broken every day. It simply isn't safe. A lecture on theoretical economics or efficiency and productivity is less than helpful.
Is your eye really worth 2% though? In the macro-economic picture?
A very imaginative picture, granted. Unicorn scampering about in the Field of Growth. A Centaur asleep by the river of trickle-down economics over there. etc.
The significance of the EU offer is that it shows that the EU gained more from dumping its surplus young people on the UK than the UK did.
If it was something that the UK gained more from then the EU wouldn't want it back.
In an age of declining birth rates, worldwide, no one is "dumping surplus young people" you pillock. Young people are much in demand. This is the EU genuinely offering to let our young people freely move around tje EU so that theirs can come here and learn English etc. Reintroducing the social dynamism we lost with Brexit (which I regretted even as I voted Leave)
It comes with strings attached, it will be a negotiation, but it is - prima facie - a win for the UK because so many more young people want to come to London and learn English in a world city, than the other way round
The era of Polush plumbers yearning to live and work in Bradford or Cumbernauld is over. Have you not been to Krakow recently?
Perhaps you should look at youth unemployment rates before you expose your ignorance.
Spain 28% Italy 23% France 18%
And there's nothing to stop the UK letting in young people with the required skillsets now.
12.8% in the UK and 12.3% in Poland.
The higher rates in those Western European countries you quote (which weren’t ever a big source of youth migration to the UK anyway) reflect structural features of their labour markets where most jobs require more qualifications than the equivalent jobs in Britain, which creates a barrier to entry for the very young but is also one reason labour productivity is higher. That’s very different from them having surplus youth.
Sophy Ridge @SophyRidgeSky · 1h 🚨🚨 @montie says that given the conversations with Conservative MPs he’s having, he thinks there will be a leadership challenge to Rishi Sunak after the local elections in two weeks … and the PM might be wise to call one himself
If Tim Montgomerie is so utterly dumb or so blinkered by his own hatred of Sunak that he doesn't know Sunak *can't* call a leadership election himself then I don't think his views are worth much.
He doesn't actually say that, he recommends calling a GE.
GPs only initial provide a sick note (or fit note as it is now named in Orwellian fashion).
If someone needs to be off long term sick and claim ESA benefit then GP is nothing to do with it after the initial short period. Sunak says crack new specialist teams will assess people. They already do you ignorant twat. In fact your government pays them millions every year to do these assessments which ill and disabled people loath because they are so utterly shite and badly carried out.
Even Johnson was better than this spreadsheet loving idiot.
Are they the same as the crack army of supply teachers who would break strikes? We have full employment. There isn't a body of specialist anyone available. Especially on the pittance a Tory government with no concept of market forces offers.
So increase wages, increase productivity, let unproductive businesses that can't cope with higher wages go out of business and let living standards improve because we are earning more as we're more productive.
That's the only way to reach an equilibrium.
Importing more people to fill vacancies no more works than importing people allows them to "steal jobs". More people = more demand = more need for employment. There is no fixed number of jobs in a country, jobs are proportional to population, its wages that determines equilibrium not quantity of people.
We have six staff, which we struggle with as it is. We had two off sick today and one with an appointment this morning. So staffed at 50%. All three of us were assaulted more than once today. My eye was bleeding. We were told no supply was available. Our employer is the government. They are trying to impose a 2% settlement this year. It can't go on like this. Statutory documents are being broken every day. It simply isn't safe.
Yes and how do you change that.
Importing more people to fill the jobs imports more people's kids who need places at schools, which then means more people need to fill the jobs that your colleagues already struggle to fill. Its a never ending loop that can't be broken as jobs and population are proportional to each other.
I'm perfectly fine with immigration, at any volume. It could go up from where it is now and I wouldn't care, but it wouldn't fill any employment gap as it can't, its not possible to do so, since jobs and population are in proportion to each other.
Or we could pay yourself and your colleagues a decent wage that attracts people to fill those vacancies, instead of other jobs, and other less productive and less necessary job roles die off and we reach a new equilibrium.
The problem isn't free movement, or the lack thereof. The problem is paying less than what is required to fill the roles and a 2% settlement makes the problem worse too.
Do you disagree with any of that?
I never mentioned immigration. We need paying properly for the role we do. Ànd less lecturing that we are layabouts leeching off the "productive" sectors.
I agree you need paying properly for the role you do, which is what I said. Hence I started my original response to you with: So increase wages ...
"We can't fill vacancies" = "we can't fill vacancies at these wages". That's a problem that can be fixed, its just a fix that some people don't want to take.
It's a route the Tory Party won't take. We have lost two of our best TA's already just this term, it's four days old. One to a call centre and one to a factory production line. Both on £300+ a month extra. And neither assaulted on a daily basis. 12 years experience lost. And both could hack it. It's just pay. Yet when we ask for £3 k a year extra we are told we're greedy and it's unaffordable.
What's your point?
I'm agreeing with you that pay needs to change. I'm agreeing with you the Tories need to go.
The solution to the problem is to pay the right wage for the right job. Paying below equilibrium leads to "employee shortages" and demand is more than supply, and paying above equilibrium leads to unemployment as supply exceeds demand.
Currently we're in the former position. It used to be the latter in this country, but its not right now, hence why we have so much vacancies and not much unemployment.
Changing the quantity of people is an irrelevant factor, since jobs are in proportion to population. The only way to solve the shortage is to raise pay to the point that people take those jobs and unproductive jobs die off and are left permanently unfilled.
I made my point. You jumped in to argue the toss about free movement. Which I never mentioned. I can't take another day like today. It is all about refusal to pay the market rate because we are public sector. It is pure prejudice. Not from you. But it's very common in here. I'm close to done serving the most marginalised. We all are. The rest of you can reap what you sowed.
Can it really be the case that Labour are ruling out youth mobility with the EU and the Tories are welcoming it?
wtf is wrong with Starmer? Is he that frit?
Genuinely I think he is. He will do whatever it takes to get over the line.
The thing is as he's already shown when he told the Corbynites he'd implement their policies if he became leader, then dumped them the second he was elected, Starmer has no integrity or principles and will say and do anything to be elected.
Once he's elected, he can do whatever he pleases.
He could sign up to youth mobility, or even full free movement, or nothing at all.
Whatever he says now while seeking to be elected has no resemblance to what he'll do once elected.
This feels like Starmer’s first massive unforced error. He’s completely misjudged the national mood
Oh please.
It would be spun as a Trojan Horse to take us back into the EU/Free Movement.
He’s got a 20 point lead in the polls and evidence shows 60% of people want to rejoin. I’m saying this as a LEAVER who would again vote LEAVE
I’m also presuming Starmer is lying and he will accept this offer once he’s won. But is this really the way to start your government? With an obvious massive lie?
The problem is it would mean agreeing FOM for 18-30 Europeans. Of course that will help Wetherspoons recruit bar staff, but also qualified Polish plumbers etc
Make it 18-21 or 23 and there’s no problem. You might even get British kids wanting to work abroad for a few years too, unlike the older Brits with families/kids at school, who weren’t keen on a job/home swap with labourers from the poor part of Lithuania pre Brexit
GPs only initial provide a sick note (or fit note as it is now named in Orwellian fashion).
If someone needs to be off long term sick and claim ESA benefit then GP is nothing to do with it after the initial short period. Sunak says crack new specialist teams will assess people. They already do you ignorant twat. In fact your government pays them millions every year to do these assessments which ill and disabled people loath because they are so utterly shite and badly carried out.
Even Johnson was better than this spreadsheet loving idiot.
Are they the same as the crack army of supply teachers who would break strikes? We have full employment. There isn't a body of specialist anyone available. Especially on the pittance a Tory government with no concept of market forces offers.
So increase wages, increase productivity, let unproductive businesses that can't cope with higher wages go out of business and let living standards improve because we are earning more as we're more productive.
That's the only way to reach an equilibrium.
Importing more people to fill vacancies no more works than importing people allows them to "steal jobs". More people = more demand = more need for employment. There is no fixed number of jobs in a country, jobs are proportional to population, its wages that determines equilibrium not quantity of people.
We have six staff, which we struggle with as it is. We had two off sick today and one with an appointment this morning. So staffed at 50%. All three of us were assaulted more than once today. My eye was bleeding. We were told no supply was available. Our employer is the government. They are trying to impose a 2% settlement this year. It can't go on like this. Statutory documents are being broken every day. It simply isn't safe.
Yes and how do you change that.
Importing more people to fill the jobs imports more people's kids who need places at schools, which then means more people need to fill the jobs that your colleagues already struggle to fill. Its a never ending loop that can't be broken as jobs and population are proportional to each other.
I'm perfectly fine with immigration, at any volume. It could go up from where it is now and I wouldn't care, but it wouldn't fill any employment gap as it can't, its not possible to do so, since jobs and population are in proportion to each other.
Or we could pay yourself and your colleagues a decent wage that attracts people to fill those vacancies, instead of other jobs, and other less productive and less necessary job roles die off and we reach a new equilibrium.
The problem isn't free movement, or the lack thereof. The problem is paying less than what is required to fill the roles and a 2% settlement makes the problem worse too.
Do you disagree with any of that?
I never mentioned immigration. We need paying properly for the role we do. Ànd less lecturing that we are layabouts leeching off the "productive" sectors.
I agree you need paying properly for the role you do, which is what I said. Hence I started my original response to you with: So increase wages ...
"We can't fill vacancies" = "we can't fill vacancies at these wages". That's a problem that can be fixed, its just a fix that some people don't want to take.
It's a route the Tory Party won't take. We have lost two of our best TA's already just this term, it's four days old. One to a call centre and one to a factory production line. Both on £300+ a month extra. And neither assaulted on a daily basis. 12 years experience lost. And both could hack it. It's just pay. Yet when we ask for £3 k a year extra we are told we're greedy and it's unaffordable.
What's your point?
I'm agreeing with you that pay needs to change. I'm agreeing with you the Tories need to go.
The solution to the problem is to pay the right wage for the right job. Paying below equilibrium leads to "employee shortages" and demand is more than supply, and paying above equilibrium leads to unemployment as supply exceeds demand.
Currently we're in the former position. It used to be the latter in this country, but its not right now, hence why we have so much vacancies and not much unemployment.
Changing the quantity of people is an irrelevant factor, since jobs are in proportion to population. The only way to solve the shortage is to raise pay to the point that people take those jobs and unproductive jobs die off and are left permanently unfilled.
I made my point. You jumped in to argue the toss about free movement. Which I never mentioned. I can't take another day like today. It is all about refusal to pay the market rate because we are public sector. It is pure prejudice. Not from you. But it's very common in here. I'm close to done serving the most marginalised. We all are. The rest of you can reap what you sowed.
Fair enough, I think we're talking cross-purposes.
The reason I was talking about free movement is because other people have said the only way to fill vacancies like yours is to import more people.
I'm saying no, the way we fill vacancies like yours is to pay people like you a decent salary for the job they're doing.
I guess you can agree with that?
PS I'm sorry for the shit you're dealing with. Sadly it doesn't surprise me.
GPs only initial provide a sick note (or fit note as it is now named in Orwellian fashion).
If someone needs to be off long term sick and claim ESA benefit then GP is nothing to do with it after the initial short period. Sunak says crack new specialist teams will assess people. They already do you ignorant twat. In fact your government pays them millions every year to do these assessments which ill and disabled people loath because they are so utterly shite and badly carried out.
Even Johnson was better than this spreadsheet loving idiot.
Are they the same as the crack army of supply teachers who would break strikes? We have full employment. There isn't a body of specialist anyone available. Especially on the pittance a Tory government with no concept of market forces offers.
So increase wages, increase productivity, let unproductive businesses that can't cope with higher wages go out of business and let living standards improve because we are earning more as we're more productive.
That's the only way to reach an equilibrium.
Importing more people to fill vacancies no more works than importing people allows them to "steal jobs". More people = more demand = more need for employment. There is no fixed number of jobs in a country, jobs are proportional to population, its wages that determines equilibrium not quantity of people.
We have six staff, which we struggle with as it is. We had two off sick today and one with an appointment this morning. So staffed at 50%. All three of us were assaulted more than once today. My eye was bleeding. We were told no supply was available. Our employer is the government. They are trying to impose a 2% settlement this year. It can't go on like this. Statutory documents are being broken every day. It simply isn't safe.
Yes and how do you change that.
Importing more people to fill the jobs imports more people's kids who need places at schools, which then means more people need to fill the jobs that your colleagues already struggle to fill. Its a never ending loop that can't be broken as jobs and population are proportional to each other.
I'm perfectly fine with immigration, at any volume. It could go up from where it is now and I wouldn't care, but it wouldn't fill any employment gap as it can't, its not possible to do so, since jobs and population are in proportion to each other.
Or we could pay yourself and your colleagues a decent wage that attracts people to fill those vacancies, instead of other jobs, and other less productive and less necessary job roles die off and we reach a new equilibrium.
The problem isn't free movement, or the lack thereof. The problem is paying less than what is required to fill the roles and a 2% settlement makes the problem worse too.
Do you disagree with any of that?
I never mentioned immigration. We need paying properly for the role we do. Ànd less lecturing that we are layabouts leeching off the "productive" sectors.
I agree you need paying properly for the role you do, which is what I said. Hence I started my original response to you with: So increase wages ...
"We can't fill vacancies" = "we can't fill vacancies at these wages". That's a problem that can be fixed, its just a fix that some people don't want to take.
It's a route the Tory Party won't take. We have lost two of our best TA's already just this term, it's four days old. One to a call centre and one to a factory production line. Both on £300+ a month extra. And neither assaulted on a daily basis. 12 years experience lost. And both could hack it. It's just pay. Yet when we ask for £3 k a year extra we are told we're greedy and it's unaffordable.
What's your point?
I'm agreeing with you that pay needs to change. I'm agreeing with you the Tories need to go.
The solution to the problem is to pay the right wage for the right job. Paying below equilibrium leads to "employee shortages" and demand is more than supply, and paying above equilibrium leads to unemployment as supply exceeds demand.
Currently we're in the former position. It used to be the latter in this country, but its not right now, hence why we have so much vacancies and not much unemployment.
Changing the quantity of people is an irrelevant factor, since jobs are in proportion to population. The only way to solve the shortage is to raise pay to the point that people take those jobs and unproductive jobs die off and are left permanently unfilled.
I made my point. You jumped in to argue the toss about free movement. Which I never mentioned. I can't take another day like today. It is all about refusal to pay the market rate because we are public sector. It is pure prejudice. Not from you. But it's very common in here. I'm close to done serving the most marginalised. We all are. The rest of you can reap what you sowed.
Sowed at 1% off National Insurance though! So #winning.
The significance of the EU offer is that it shows that the EU gained more from dumping its surplus young people on the UK than the UK did.
If it was something that the UK gained more from then the EU wouldn't want it back.
In an age of declining birth rates, worldwide, no one is "dumping surplus young people" you pillock. Young people are much in demand. This is the EU genuinely offering to let our young people freely move around tje EU so that theirs can come here and learn English etc. Reintroducing the social dynamism we lost with Brexit (which I regretted even as I voted Leave)
It comes with strings attached, it will be a negotiation, but it is - prima facie - a win for the UK because so many more young people want to come to London and learn English in a world city, than the other way round
The era of Polush plumbers yearning to live and work in Bradford or Cumbernauld is over. Have you not been to Krakow recently?
Perhaps you should look at youth unemployment rates before you expose your ignorance.
Spain 28% Italy 23% France 18%
And there's nothing to stop the UK letting in young people with the required skillsets now.
The EU's youth unemployment stats have been bollocks for a while. And of those that are true, they aren't the type to come to London and look for a job. Drug dealers from Seine St Denis are not going to come to Camden, we may get a few ruffians from Romania
But here's the deal: WE ALREADY GET THESE ANYWAY. We have 60,000 crossing the Channel every year, and the figure is rising. We are apparently incapable of throwing out any of them. We are pathetic
Right now our attitude to immigration seems to be, If you are a foreign rapist, great, please come in by dinghy, and we will give you a house, and we won't throw you out because, er, you might go to jail in your home country for being a rapist, so please rape our women instead. Mranwhile heaven forfend that young honest Brits should have the opportunity to live and work in the Alps or Spain or Vienna or Denmark, no, let's just keep absorbing Afghan rapists that's who we want
We have contrived the most maximally stupid migration policy in history. We take the criminal dregs, we let them stay BECAUSE they are criminal, and we refuse to let our own young people roam free, in case we get too many good hardworking plumbers from Gdansk. I cannot think of a worse state of affairs when it comes to immigration
GPs only initial provide a sick note (or fit note as it is now named in Orwellian fashion).
If someone needs to be off long term sick and claim ESA benefit then GP is nothing to do with it after the initial short period. Sunak says crack new specialist teams will assess people. They already do you ignorant twat. In fact your government pays them millions every year to do these assessments which ill and disabled people loath because they are so utterly shite and badly carried out.
Even Johnson was better than this spreadsheet loving idiot.
Are they the same as the crack army of supply teachers who would break strikes? We have full employment. There isn't a body of specialist anyone available. Especially on the pittance a Tory government with no concept of market forces offers.
So increase wages, increase productivity, let unproductive businesses that can't cope with higher wages go out of business and let living standards improve because we are earning more as we're more productive.
That's the only way to reach an equilibrium.
Importing more people to fill vacancies no more works than importing people allows them to "steal jobs". More people = more demand = more need for employment. There is no fixed number of jobs in a country, jobs are proportional to population, its wages that determines equilibrium not quantity of people.
We have six staff, which we struggle with as it is. We had two off sick today and one with an appointment this morning. So staffed at 50%. All three of us were assaulted more than once today. My eye was bleeding. We were told no supply was available. Our employer is the government. They are trying to impose a 2% settlement this year. It can't go on like this. Statutory documents are being broken every day. It simply isn't safe.
Yes and how do you change that.
Importing more people to fill the jobs imports more people's kids who need places at schools, which then means more people need to fill the jobs that your colleagues already struggle to fill. Its a never ending loop that can't be broken as jobs and population are proportional to each other.
I'm perfectly fine with immigration, at any volume. It could go up from where it is now and I wouldn't care, but it wouldn't fill any employment gap as it can't, its not possible to do so, since jobs and population are in proportion to each other.
Or we could pay yourself and your colleagues a decent wage that attracts people to fill those vacancies, instead of other jobs, and other less productive and less necessary job roles die off and we reach a new equilibrium.
The problem isn't free movement, or the lack thereof. The problem is paying less than what is required to fill the roles and a 2% settlement makes the problem worse too.
Do you disagree with any of that?
I never mentioned immigration. We need paying properly for the role we do. Ànd less lecturing that we are layabouts leeching off the "productive" sectors.
I agree you need paying properly for the role you do, which is what I said. Hence I started my original response to you with: So increase wages ...
"We can't fill vacancies" = "we can't fill vacancies at these wages". That's a problem that can be fixed, its just a fix that some people don't want to take.
It's a route the Tory Party won't take. We have lost two of our best TA's already just this term, it's four days old. One to a call centre and one to a factory production line. Both on £300+ a month extra. And neither assaulted on a daily basis. 12 years experience lost. And both could hack it. It's just pay. Yet when we ask for £3 k a year extra we are told we're greedy and it's unaffordable.
What's your point?
I'm agreeing with you that pay needs to change. I'm agreeing with you the Tories need to go.
The solution to the problem is to pay the right wage for the right job. Paying below equilibrium leads to "employee shortages" and demand is more than supply, and paying above equilibrium leads to unemployment as supply exceeds demand.
Currently we're in the former position. It used to be the latter in this country, but its not right now, hence why we have so much vacancies and not much unemployment.
Changing the quantity of people is an irrelevant factor, since jobs are in proportion to population. The only way to solve the shortage is to raise pay to the point that people take those jobs and unproductive jobs die off and are left permanently unfilled.
I made my point. You jumped in to argue the toss about free movement. Which I never mentioned. I can't take another day like today. It is all about refusal to pay the market rate because we are public sector. It is pure prejudice. Not from you. But it's very common in here. I'm close to done serving the most marginalised. We all are. The rest of you can reap what you sowed.
Sowed at 1% off National Insurance though! So #winning.
Don't mock it, cutting National Insurance is one of the few good things that this government has done.
It means people working for a living can keep more of their income. Abolishing National Insurance altogether and taxing earned income at the same rate as unearned incomes would be even better.
The significance of the EU offer is that it shows that the EU gained more from dumping its surplus young people on the UK than the UK did.
If it was something that the UK gained more from then the EU wouldn't want it back.
In an age of declining birth rates, worldwide, no one is "dumping surplus young people" you pillock. Young people are much in demand. This is the EU genuinely offering to let our young people freely move around tje EU so that theirs can come here and learn English etc. Reintroducing the social dynamism we lost with Brexit (which I regretted even as I voted Leave)
It comes with strings attached, it will be a negotiation, but it is - prima facie - a win for the UK because so many more young people want to come to London and learn English in a world city, than the other way round
The era of Polush plumbers yearning to live and work in Bradford or Cumbernauld is over. Have you not been to Krakow recently?
Perhaps you should look at youth unemployment rates before you expose your ignorance.
Spain 28% Italy 23% France 18%
And there's nothing to stop the UK letting in young people with the required skillsets now.
12.8% in the UK and 12.3% in Poland.
The higher rates in those Western European countries you quote (which weren’t ever a big source of youth migration to the UK anyway) reflect structural features of their labour markets where most jobs require more qualifications than the equivalent jobs in Britain, which creates a barrier to entry for the very young but is also one reason labour productivity is higher. That’s very different from them having surplus youth.
It suggests they have unemployable youth.
We really don't need any more people with low level skillsets - we have more than enough of those already.
Not to mention that many of the people who would be attracted to come to this country might well originate outside the European continent.
The sort of people Leon is normally in a fury about when it comes to immigration.
What a shameful piece of shit Liz Truss is, if Corbyn used this defence he would have been rightly pummelled for repeating a well known antisemitic trope.
A spokesman for Truss said: “Liz came across the quote and thought it was a useful way of illustrating a point about the Bank of England. Numerous online sources have stated that it was attributed it to Rothschild, so she attributed it thus.”
According to your link, she says in the book that it is 'attributed to' him, she does not confirm that he said it. I can't see anything incorrect about that - it's the right way to phrase something that's been attributed to someone without evidence.
It certainly doesn't warrant the type of language used in your post, which ought to cause you some shame frankly.
The significance of the EU offer is that it shows that the EU gained more from dumping its surplus young people on the UK than the UK did.
If it was something that the UK gained more from then the EU wouldn't want it back.
In an age of declining birth rates, worldwide, no one is "dumping surplus young people" you pillock. Young people are much in demand. This is the EU genuinely offering to let our young people freely move around tje EU so that theirs can come here and learn English etc. Reintroducing the social dynamism we lost with Brexit (which I regretted even as I voted Leave)
It comes with strings attached, it will be a negotiation, but it is - prima facie - a win for the UK because so many more young people want to come to London and learn English in a world city, than the other way round
The era of Polush plumbers yearning to live and work in Bradford or Cumbernauld is over. Have you not been to Krakow recently?
Perhaps you should look at youth unemployment rates before you expose your ignorance.
Spain 28% Italy 23% France 18%
And there's nothing to stop the UK letting in young people with the required skillsets now.
12.8% in the UK and 12.3% in Poland.
The higher rates in those Western European countries you quote (which weren’t ever a big source of youth migration to the UK anyway) reflect structural features of their labour markets where most jobs require more qualifications than the equivalent jobs in Britain, which creates a barrier to entry for the very young but is also one reason labour productivity is higher. That’s very different from them having surplus youth.
It suggests they have unemployable youth.
We really don't need any more people with low level skillsets - we have more than enough of those already.
Not to mention that many of the people who would be attracted to come to this country might well originate outside the European continent.
The sort of people Leon is normally in a fury about when it comes to immigration.
We have just imported 1.4 MILLION people in two years, plus 60k a year on the boats. I really don't see how it can get any worse plus this deal allows our kids to work and learn and love across Europe
IPSOS today. Keir Starmer’s ratings have also fallen since February. 25% are satisfied with his performance as Labour leader (-4) and 56% are dissatisfied (+1). His net score of -31 is his worst as Labour leader since he recorded a -29 in May 2021
GPs only initial provide a sick note (or fit note as it is now named in Orwellian fashion).
If someone needs to be off long term sick and claim ESA benefit then GP is nothing to do with it after the initial short period. Sunak says crack new specialist teams will assess people. They already do you ignorant twat. In fact your government pays them millions every year to do these assessments which ill and disabled people loath because they are so utterly shite and badly carried out.
Even Johnson was better than this spreadsheet loving idiot.
Are they the same as the crack army of supply teachers who would break strikes? We have full employment. There isn't a body of specialist anyone available. Especially on the pittance a Tory government with no concept of market forces offers.
So increase wages, increase productivity, let unproductive businesses that can't cope with higher wages go out of business and let living standards improve because we are earning more as we're more productive.
That's the only way to reach an equilibrium.
Importing more people to fill vacancies no more works than importing people allows them to "steal jobs". More people = more demand = more need for employment. There is no fixed number of jobs in a country, jobs are proportional to population, its wages that determines equilibrium not quantity of people.
We have six staff, which we struggle with as it is. We had two off sick today and one with an appointment this morning. So staffed at 50%. All three of us were assaulted more than once today. My eye was bleeding. We were told no supply was available. Our employer is the government. They are trying to impose a 2% settlement this year. It can't go on like this. Statutory documents are being broken every day. It simply isn't safe.
Yes and how do you change that.
Importing more people to fill the jobs imports more people's kids who need places at schools, which then means more people need to fill the jobs that your colleagues already struggle to fill. Its a never ending loop that can't be broken as jobs and population are proportional to each other.
I'm perfectly fine with immigration, at any volume. It could go up from where it is now and I wouldn't care, but it wouldn't fill any employment gap as it can't, its not possible to do so, since jobs and population are in proportion to each other.
Or we could pay yourself and your colleagues a decent wage that attracts people to fill those vacancies, instead of other jobs, and other less productive and less necessary job roles die off and we reach a new equilibrium.
The problem isn't free movement, or the lack thereof. The problem is paying less than what is required to fill the roles and a 2% settlement makes the problem worse too.
Do you disagree with any of that?
I never mentioned immigration. We need paying properly for the role we do. Ànd less lecturing that we are layabouts leeching off the "productive" sectors.
I agree you need paying properly for the role you do, which is what I said. Hence I started my original response to you with: So increase wages ...
"We can't fill vacancies" = "we can't fill vacancies at these wages". That's a problem that can be fixed, its just a fix that some people don't want to take.
It's a route the Tory Party won't take. We have lost two of our best TA's already just this term, it's four days old. One to a call centre and one to a factory production line. Both on £300+ a month extra. And neither assaulted on a daily basis. 12 years experience lost. And both could hack it. It's just pay. Yet when we ask for £3 k a year extra we are told we're greedy and it's unaffordable.
What's your point?
I'm agreeing with you that pay needs to change. I'm agreeing with you the Tories need to go.
The solution to the problem is to pay the right wage for the right job. Paying below equilibrium leads to "employee shortages" and demand is more than supply, and paying above equilibrium leads to unemployment as supply exceeds demand.
Currently we're in the former position. It used to be the latter in this country, but its not right now, hence why we have so much vacancies and not much unemployment.
Changing the quantity of people is an irrelevant factor, since jobs are in proportion to population. The only way to solve the shortage is to raise pay to the point that people take those jobs and unproductive jobs die off and are left permanently unfilled.
I made my point. You jumped in to argue the toss about free movement. Which I never mentioned. I can't take another day like today. It is all about refusal to pay the market rate because we are public sector. It is pure prejudice. Not from you. But it's very common in here. I'm close to done serving the most marginalised. We all are. The rest of you can reap what you sowed.
Fair enough, I think we're talking cross-purposes.
The reason I was talking about free movement is because other people have said the only way to fill vacancies like yours is to import more people.
I'm saying no, the way we fill vacancies like yours is to pay people like you a decent salary for the job they're doing.
I guess you can agree with that?
PS I'm sorry for the shit you're dealing with. Sadly it doesn't surprise me.
Yeah. We are. Peace. It's been the worst day I can recall. And I haven't been to A+E. Sorry if I've been a bit spiky. Breathe. It's Friday.
"Offshore wind farms get approval to double capacity
Plans to extend two Norfolk offshore wind farms have been given permission to go ahead by Claire Coutinho, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.
Equinor, who co-owns the Sheringham Shoal and Dudgeon offshore wind farms in Norfolk, said it hopes the plans would mean it could double capacity, external and provide renewable energy to power an additional 785,000 homes"
The significance of the EU offer is that it shows that the EU gained more from dumping its surplus young people on the UK than the UK did.
If it was something that the UK gained more from then the EU wouldn't want it back.
In an age of declining birth rates, worldwide, no one is "dumping surplus young people" you pillock. Young people are much in demand. This is the EU genuinely offering to let our young people freely move around tje EU so that theirs can come here and learn English etc. Reintroducing the social dynamism we lost with Brexit (which I regretted even as I voted Leave)
It comes with strings attached, it will be a negotiation, but it is - prima facie - a win for the UK because so many more young people want to come to London and learn English in a world city, than the other way round
The era of Polush plumbers yearning to live and work in Bradford or Cumbernauld is over. Have you not been to Krakow recently?
Perhaps you should look at youth unemployment rates before you expose your ignorance.
Spain 28% Italy 23% France 18%
And there's nothing to stop the UK letting in young people with the required skillsets now.
The EU's youth unemployment stats have been bollocks for a while. And of those that are true, they aren't the type to come to London and look for a job. Drug dealers from Seine St Denis are not going to come to Camden, we may get a few ruffians from Romania
But here's the deal: WE ALREADY GET THESE ANYWAY. We have 60,000 crossing the Channel every year, and the figure is rising. We are apparently incapable of throwing out any of them. We are pathetic
Right now our attitude to immigration seems to be, If you are a foreign rapist, great, please come in by dinghy, and we will give you a house, and we won't throw you out because, er, you might go to jail in your home country for being a rapist, so please rape our women instead. Mranwhile heaven forfend that young honest Brits should have the opportunity to live and work in the Alps or Spain or Vienna or Denmark, no, let's just keep absorbing Afghan rapists that's who we want
We have contrived the most maximally stupid migration policy in history. We take the criminal dregs, we let them stay BECAUSE they are criminal, and we refuse to let our own young people roam free, in case we get too many good hardworking plumbers from Gdansk. I cannot think of a worse state of affairs when it comes to immigration
I doubt those young people now learning useful trades will be as keen about having another wave of Europeans to undercut their wages.
Nor do I think the young people of London necessarily want even more competition for housing.
Even if it does make it easier for Jemima and Jocasta to become ski chalet maids.
As a Labour supporter, I'd just like to apologise to the Tory brexiteers on here that Starmer has, so far, been an abysmal PM. He's done nothing at all to undo Brexit, which is, I'm sure, what you were all hoping for.
GPs only initial provide a sick note (or fit note as it is now named in Orwellian fashion).
If someone needs to be off long term sick and claim ESA benefit then GP is nothing to do with it after the initial short period. Sunak says crack new specialist teams will assess people. They already do you ignorant twat. In fact your government pays them millions every year to do these assessments which ill and disabled people loath because they are so utterly shite and badly carried out.
Even Johnson was better than this spreadsheet loving idiot.
Are they the same as the crack army of supply teachers who would break strikes? We have full employment. There isn't a body of specialist anyone available. Especially on the pittance a Tory government with no concept of market forces offers.
So increase wages, increase productivity, let unproductive businesses that can't cope with higher wages go out of business and let living standards improve because we are earning more as we're more productive.
That's the only way to reach an equilibrium.
Importing more people to fill vacancies no more works than importing people allows them to "steal jobs". More people = more demand = more need for employment. There is no fixed number of jobs in a country, jobs are proportional to population, its wages that determines equilibrium not quantity of people.
We have six staff, which we struggle with as it is. We had two off sick today and one with an appointment this morning. So staffed at 50%. All three of us were assaulted more than once today. My eye was bleeding. We were told no supply was available. Our employer is the government. They are trying to impose a 2% settlement this year. It can't go on like this. Statutory documents are being broken every day. It simply isn't safe.
Yes and how do you change that.
Importing more people to fill the jobs imports more people's kids who need places at schools, which then means more people need to fill the jobs that your colleagues already struggle to fill. Its a never ending loop that can't be broken as jobs and population are proportional to each other.
I'm perfectly fine with immigration, at any volume. It could go up from where it is now and I wouldn't care, but it wouldn't fill any employment gap as it can't, its not possible to do so, since jobs and population are in proportion to each other.
Or we could pay yourself and your colleagues a decent wage that attracts people to fill those vacancies, instead of other jobs, and other less productive and less necessary job roles die off and we reach a new equilibrium.
The problem isn't free movement, or the lack thereof. The problem is paying less than what is required to fill the roles and a 2% settlement makes the problem worse too.
Do you disagree with any of that?
I never mentioned immigration. We need paying properly for the role we do. Ànd less lecturing that we are layabouts leeching off the "productive" sectors.
I agree you need paying properly for the role you do, which is what I said. Hence I started my original response to you with: So increase wages ...
"We can't fill vacancies" = "we can't fill vacancies at these wages". That's a problem that can be fixed, its just a fix that some people don't want to take.
It's a route the Tory Party won't take. We have lost two of our best TA's already just this term, it's four days old. One to a call centre and one to a factory production line. Both on £300+ a month extra. And neither assaulted on a daily basis. 12 years experience lost. And both could hack it. It's just pay. Yet when we ask for £3 k a year extra we are told we're greedy and it's unaffordable.
What's your point?
I'm agreeing with you that pay needs to change. I'm agreeing with you the Tories need to go.
The solution to the problem is to pay the right wage for the right job. Paying below equilibrium leads to "employee shortages" and demand is more than supply, and paying above equilibrium leads to unemployment as supply exceeds demand.
Currently we're in the former position. It used to be the latter in this country, but its not right now, hence why we have so much vacancies and not much unemployment.
Changing the quantity of people is an irrelevant factor, since jobs are in proportion to population. The only way to solve the shortage is to raise pay to the point that people take those jobs and unproductive jobs die off and are left permanently unfilled.
I made my point. You jumped in to argue the toss about free movement. Which I never mentioned. I can't take another day like today. It is all about refusal to pay the market rate because we are public sector. It is pure prejudice. Not from you. But it's very common in here. I'm close to done serving the most marginalised. We all are. The rest of you can reap what you sowed.
Fair enough, I think we're talking cross-purposes.
The reason I was talking about free movement is because other people have said the only way to fill vacancies like yours is to import more people.
I'm saying no, the way we fill vacancies like yours is to pay people like you a decent salary for the job they're doing.
I guess you can agree with that?
PS I'm sorry for the shit you're dealing with. Sadly it doesn't surprise me.
Yeah. We are. Peace. It's been the worst day I can recall. And I haven't been to A+E. Sorry if I've been a bit spiky. Breathe. It's Friday.
Dude, are you serious that so many of your staff were assaulted in one day? How and why? Where are you?
The significance of the EU offer is that it shows that the EU gained more from dumping its surplus young people on the UK than the UK did.
If it was something that the UK gained more from then the EU wouldn't want it back.
In an age of declining birth rates, worldwide, no one is "dumping surplus young people" you pillock. Young people are much in demand. This is the EU genuinely offering to let our young people freely move around the EU so that theirs can come here and learn English etc. Reintroducing the social dynamism we lost with Brexit (which I regretted even as I voted Leave)
It comes with strings attached, it will be a negotiation, but it is - prima facie - a win for the UK because so many more young people want to come to London and learn English in a world city, as against the other way round
The era of Polish plumbers yearning to live and work in Bradford or Cumbernauld is over. Have you not been to Krakow recently?
I have not been to Krakow, but both Krakow and Gdansk are highly recommended by friends. As I can jump just jump on a train at Hauptbahnhof, I really should do this.
Interesting about food labels in the UK. In the US, individual fruits have variety labels on them and -- usually -- there is a larger sign over the variety being sold. (Super markets often advertise specials on particular varieties.)
As I recall, farmer's markets don't have the same requirement to have labels on the individual fruits.
The individual labels are about a half inch in diameter, and readable by both people and machines.
Criticising Starmer for not overturning one of the key things of the Brexit platform, stopping free movement.
Ah, but which Brexit platform? I suspect that some Brexit backers hated having to rely on the anti-immigration vote to get their dream over the line.
See, I could embarrass so many Leavers when I remind them of their comments to this.
But that's what we have now.
Free trade agreement. ✅ No free movement. ✅ No budget contributions. ✅ No supremacy of EU law. ✅
Which part of that didn't come true?
EU law has supremacy in some areas.
The Free Trade Agreement really isn't which has led to bullshit like this
The UK government has told the country’s port authorities that it will not “turn on” critical health and safety checks for EU imports when post-Brexit border controls begin this month because of the risk of “significant disruption”.
In a presentation seen by the Financial Times, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) outlined a plan to avoid queues of lorries at ports, revealing that if the new border measures were implemented as planned big delays could follow.
Since announcing new border controls on plant and food products last year the government has promised it would “phase in” checks, which trade groups have warned will hurt small businesses and drive up the price of food.
However, just over a fortnight before physical inspections are set to begin, the presentation last week made clear that the new border systems will not be fully ready.
In order to get around the problem, the government said it would ensure the rate of checks was initially “set to zero for all commodity groups” — essentially switching off large parts of the risk management system, in what it called a “phased implementation approach”.
Implementation of the new border controls has been postponed five times since 2021, which has left EU exporters of animal and plant products free to send them to the UK without checks.
I think to most people free trade means no tariffs. We have that. We don’t have frictionless trade.
Indeed, as far as bilateral free trade agreements go, the TCA is one of the deepest and most comprehensive free trade agreements in the world.
Under any rational definition it meets the word free trade.
The idea that only full EU membership = free trade and no free trade agreement on the planet does, is just silly.
The trade between Britain and the EU is less free than it was when Britain was a member of the EU.
Is that the impression that you think Vote Leave were trying to give during the campaign, or do you think they wanted to make people think that there would be no loss of trading advantage?
The significance of the EU offer is that it shows that the EU gained more from dumping its surplus young people on the UK than the UK did.
If it was something that the UK gained more from then the EU wouldn't want it back.
In an age of declining birth rates, worldwide, no one is "dumping surplus young people" you pillock. Young people are much in demand. This is the EU genuinely offering to let our young people freely move around the EU so that theirs can come here and learn English etc. Reintroducing the social dynamism we lost with Brexit (which I regretted even as I voted Leave)
It comes with strings attached, it will be a negotiation, but it is - prima facie - a win for the UK because so many more young people want to come to London and learn English in a world city, as against the other way round
The era of Polish plumbers yearning to live and work in Bradford or Cumbernauld is over. Have you not been to Krakow recently?
I have not been to Krakow, but both Krakow and Gdansk are highly recommended by friends. As I can jump just jump on a train at Hauptbahnhof, I really should do this.
Thank you for the encouragement.
Krakow is stunning. A jewel of a city. It arguably has the most beautiful "piazza" in the world, it possibly rivals St Mark's Square, and does bukkake all over Piazza Navona, Place de la Concorde, Trafalgar Sq, etc
Of course not all of Poland is like this. But a visit is a must, to see how Eastern Europe has improved (they have tripled their GDP per capita since EU membership) and how they have managed to do it while keeping crime low, and by simply rebuildig as was all the architecture destroyed in World War Two rather than - like us - trying to build American style car cities or hideous brutalist shite. They got it right, we got it wrong
Criticising Starmer for not overturning one of the key things of the Brexit platform, stopping free movement.
Ah, but which Brexit platform? I suspect that some Brexit backers hated having to rely on the anti-immigration vote to get their dream over the line.
See, I could embarrass so many Leavers when I remind them of their comments to this.
But that's what we have now.
Free trade agreement. ✅ No free movement. ✅ No budget contributions. ✅ No supremacy of EU law. ✅
Which part of that didn't come true?
EU law has supremacy in some areas.
The Free Trade Agreement really isn't which has led to bullshit like this
The UK government has told the country’s port authorities that it will not “turn on” critical health and safety checks for EU imports when post-Brexit border controls begin this month because of the risk of “significant disruption”.
In a presentation seen by the Financial Times, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) outlined a plan to avoid queues of lorries at ports, revealing that if the new border measures were implemented as planned big delays could follow.
Since announcing new border controls on plant and food products last year the government has promised it would “phase in” checks, which trade groups have warned will hurt small businesses and drive up the price of food.
However, just over a fortnight before physical inspections are set to begin, the presentation last week made clear that the new border systems will not be fully ready.
In order to get around the problem, the government said it would ensure the rate of checks was initially “set to zero for all commodity groups” — essentially switching off large parts of the risk management system, in what it called a “phased implementation approach”.
Implementation of the new border controls has been postponed five times since 2021, which has left EU exporters of animal and plant products free to send them to the UK without checks.
I think to most people free trade means no tariffs. We have that. We don’t have frictionless trade.
Indeed, as far as bilateral free trade agreements go, the TCA is one of the deepest and most comprehensive free trade agreements in the world.
Under any rational definition it meets the word free trade.
The idea that only full EU membership = free trade and no free trade agreement on the planet does, is just silly.
The trade between Britain and the EU is less free than it was when Britain was a member of the EU.
Is that the impression that you think Vote Leave were trying to give during the campaign, or do you think they wanted to make people think that there would be no loss of trading advantage?
I think they wanted to give the impression we would have free trade, no free movement, no supremacy of EU law, and no budget contributions.
What we have is free trade, no free movement, no supremacy of EU law and no budget contributions.
In the words of Douglas Adams: Probability factor of one to one. We have normality. I repeat, we have normality. Anything you still can't cope with is therefore your own problem.
The significance of the EU offer is that it shows that the EU gained more from dumping its surplus young people on the UK than the UK did.
If it was something that the UK gained more from then the EU wouldn't want it back.
In an age of declining birth rates, worldwide, no one is "dumping surplus young people" you pillock. Young people are much in demand. This is the EU genuinely offering to let our young people freely move around tje EU so that theirs can come here and learn English etc. Reintroducing the social dynamism we lost with Brexit (which I regretted even as I voted Leave)
It comes with strings attached, it will be a negotiation, but it is - prima facie - a win for the UK because so many more young people want to come to London and learn English in a world city, than the other way round
The era of Polush plumbers yearning to live and work in Bradford or Cumbernauld is over. Have you not been to Krakow recently?
Perhaps you should look at youth unemployment rates before you expose your ignorance.
Spain 28% Italy 23% France 18%
And there's nothing to stop the UK letting in young people with the required skillsets now.
12.8% in the UK and 12.3% in Poland.
The higher rates in those Western European countries you quote (which weren’t ever a big source of youth migration to the UK anyway) reflect structural features of their labour markets where most jobs require more qualifications than the equivalent jobs in Britain, which creates a barrier to entry for the very young but is also one reason labour productivity is higher. That’s very different from them having surplus youth.
It suggests they have unemployable youth.
We really don't need any more people with low level skillsets - we have more than enough of those already.
Not to mention that many of the people who would be attracted to come to this country might well originate outside the European continent.
The sort of people Leon is normally in a fury about when it comes to immigration.
We have just imported 1.4 MILLION people in two years, plus 60k a year on the boats. I really don't see how it can get any worse plus this deal allows our kids to work and learn and love across Europe
It can always be worse and pretty much every migration decision leads to more migration than was predicted.
As to your romantic fantasies about British kids it sounds far more like Cliff Richard's Summer Holiday than reality.
Criticising Starmer for not overturning one of the key things of the Brexit platform, stopping free movement.
Ah, but which Brexit platform? I suspect that some Brexit backers hated having to rely on the anti-immigration vote to get their dream over the line.
See, I could embarrass so many Leavers when I remind them of their comments to this.
But that's what we have now.
Free trade agreement. ✅ No free movement. ✅ No budget contributions. ✅ No supremacy of EU law. ✅
Which part of that didn't come true?
EU law has supremacy in some areas.
The Free Trade Agreement really isn't which has led to bullshit like this
The UK government has told the country’s port authorities that it will not “turn on” critical health and safety checks for EU imports when post-Brexit border controls begin this month because of the risk of “significant disruption”.
In a presentation seen by the Financial Times, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) outlined a plan to avoid queues of lorries at ports, revealing that if the new border measures were implemented as planned big delays could follow.
Since announcing new border controls on plant and food products last year the government has promised it would “phase in” checks, which trade groups have warned will hurt small businesses and drive up the price of food.
However, just over a fortnight before physical inspections are set to begin, the presentation last week made clear that the new border systems will not be fully ready.
In order to get around the problem, the government said it would ensure the rate of checks was initially “set to zero for all commodity groups” — essentially switching off large parts of the risk management system, in what it called a “phased implementation approach”.
Implementation of the new border controls has been postponed five times since 2021, which has left EU exporters of animal and plant products free to send them to the UK without checks.
I think to most people free trade means no tariffs. We have that. We don’t have frictionless trade.
Indeed, as far as bilateral free trade agreements go, the TCA is one of the deepest and most comprehensive free trade agreements in the world.
Under any rational definition it meets the word free trade.
The idea that only full EU membership = free trade and no free trade agreement on the planet does, is just silly.
The trade between Britain and the EU is less free than it was when Britain was a member of the EU.
Is that the impression that you think Vote Leave were trying to give during the campaign, or do you think they wanted to make people think that there would be no loss of trading advantage?
Neither India nor China has an FTA with the UK or the EU. Yet we (and the EU) are swimming in goods from those two countries. I just cannot see why we are wetting ourselves about some regulations - if they want each whelk to have a 2000 page biography and be signed off by 7 vets, get really good at doing it and give them what they want - like everyone else does. Surely AI can help? Why is everything such a big hairy deal in this country?
Wasn't there an accusation some members of the SNP finance committee resigned because the Chief Executive wouldn't let them see the books or something? I may have that wrong, but if correct even the best interpretation is not great.
The significance of the EU offer is that it shows that the EU gained more from dumping its surplus young people on the UK than the UK did.
If it was something that the UK gained more from then the EU wouldn't want it back.
In an age of declining birth rates, worldwide, no one is "dumping surplus young people" you pillock. Young people are much in demand. This is the EU genuinely offering to let our young people freely move around the EU so that theirs can come here and learn English etc. Reintroducing the social dynamism we lost with Brexit (which I regretted even as I voted Leave)
It comes with strings attached, it will be a negotiation, but it is - prima facie - a win for the UK because so many more young people want to come to London and learn English in a world city, as against the other way round
The era of Polish plumbers yearning to live and work in Bradford or Cumbernauld is over. Have you not been to Krakow recently?
I have not been to Krakow, but both Krakow and Gdansk are highly recommended by friends. As I can jump just jump on a train at Hauptbahnhof, I really should do this.
Thank you for the encouragement.
Gdansk is well worth a visit - and Sopot in summer. Also, take the road to Hel....
GPs only initial provide a sick note (or fit note as it is now named in Orwellian fashion).
If someone needs to be off long term sick and claim ESA benefit then GP is nothing to do with it after the initial short period. Sunak says crack new specialist teams will assess people. They already do you ignorant twat. In fact your government pays them millions every year to do these assessments which ill and disabled people loath because they are so utterly shite and badly carried out.
Even Johnson was better than this spreadsheet loving idiot.
Are they the same as the crack army of supply teachers who would break strikes? We have full employment. There isn't a body of specialist anyone available. Especially on the pittance a Tory government with no concept of market forces offers.
So increase wages, increase productivity, let unproductive businesses that can't cope with higher wages go out of business and let living standards improve because we are earning more as we're more productive.
That's the only way to reach an equilibrium.
Importing more people to fill vacancies no more works than importing people allows them to "steal jobs". More people = more demand = more need for employment. There is no fixed number of jobs in a country, jobs are proportional to population, its wages that determines equilibrium not quantity of people.
We have six staff, which we struggle with as it is. We had two off sick today and one with an appointment this morning. So staffed at 50%. All three of us were assaulted more than once today. My eye was bleeding. We were told no supply was available. Our employer is the government. They are trying to impose a 2% settlement this year. It can't go on like this. Statutory documents are being broken every day. It simply isn't safe.
Yes and how do you change that.
Importing more people to fill the jobs imports more people's kids who need places at schools, which then means more people need to fill the jobs that your colleagues already struggle to fill. Its a never ending loop that can't be broken as jobs and population are proportional to each other.
I'm perfectly fine with immigration, at any volume. It could go up from where it is now and I wouldn't care, but it wouldn't fill any employment gap as it can't, its not possible to do so, since jobs and population are in proportion to each other.
Or we could pay yourself and your colleagues a decent wage that attracts people to fill those vacancies, instead of other jobs, and other less productive and less necessary job roles die off and we reach a new equilibrium.
The problem isn't free movement, or the lack thereof. The problem is paying less than what is required to fill the roles and a 2% settlement makes the problem worse too.
Do you disagree with any of that?
I never mentioned immigration. We need paying properly for the role we do. Ànd less lecturing that we are layabouts leeching off the "productive" sectors.
I agree you need paying properly for the role you do, which is what I said. Hence I started my original response to you with: So increase wages ...
"We can't fill vacancies" = "we can't fill vacancies at these wages". That's a problem that can be fixed, its just a fix that some people don't want to take.
It's a route the Tory Party won't take. We have lost two of our best TA's already just this term, it's four days old. One to a call centre and one to a factory production line. Both on £300+ a month extra. And neither assaulted on a daily basis. 12 years experience lost. And both could hack it. It's just pay. Yet when we ask for £3 k a year extra we are told we're greedy and it's unaffordable.
What's your point?
I'm agreeing with you that pay needs to change. I'm agreeing with you the Tories need to go.
The solution to the problem is to pay the right wage for the right job. Paying below equilibrium leads to "employee shortages" and demand is more than supply, and paying above equilibrium leads to unemployment as supply exceeds demand.
Currently we're in the former position. It used to be the latter in this country, but its not right now, hence why we have so much vacancies and not much unemployment.
Changing the quantity of people is an irrelevant factor, since jobs are in proportion to population. The only way to solve the shortage is to raise pay to the point that people take those jobs and unproductive jobs die off and are left permanently unfilled.
I made my point. You jumped in to argue the toss about free movement. Which I never mentioned. I can't take another day like today. It is all about refusal to pay the market rate because we are public sector. It is pure prejudice. Not from you. But it's very common in here. I'm close to done serving the most marginalised. We all are. The rest of you can reap what you sowed.
Fair enough, I think we're talking cross-purposes.
The reason I was talking about free movement is because other people have said the only way to fill vacancies like yours is to import more people.
I'm saying no, the way we fill vacancies like yours is to pay people like you a decent salary for the job they're doing.
I guess you can agree with that?
PS I'm sorry for the shit you're dealing with. Sadly it doesn't surprise me.
Yeah. We are. Peace. It's been the worst day I can recall. And I haven't been to A+E. Sorry if I've been a bit spiky. Breathe. It's Friday.
Dude, are you serious that so many of your staff were assaulted in one day? How and why? Where are you?
My profound sympathies
It's an Alternative Provision Unit of a special school. It's a bit run of the mill. It does boil my piss when generalisations about bone idle unproductive public sector workers are thrown about. Most of my staff could get more in Aldi. Was a little more hitty, kicky and throwy today than normal. Lighter on the rape threats. So there's that.
6-8 weeks apparently. Trump could be convicted (or acquitted) by June.
Alternate jurors still need to be appointed
I think in some states people don't even know which jurors of the total selected will form the 12 deciding ones, but that is not the case in New York.
Given the Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments soon on the appeal which is holding up the more serious Federal Insurrection case which was meant to start 6 weeks ago, and are expected to rule sometime in June or July, part of me wonders if the justices wanted to see the outcome of this lesser criminal trial before announcing their decision on that one - and whether to hold it off as long as possible to prevent it going to trial before the election or not.
The significance of the EU offer is that it shows that the EU gained more from dumping its surplus young people on the UK than the UK did.
If it was something that the UK gained more from then the EU wouldn't want it back.
In an age of declining birth rates, worldwide, no one is "dumping surplus young people" you pillock. Young people are much in demand. This is the EU genuinely offering to let our young people freely move around the EU so that theirs can come here and learn English etc. Reintroducing the social dynamism we lost with Brexit (which I regretted even as I voted Leave)
It comes with strings attached, it will be a negotiation, but it is - prima facie - a win for the UK because so many more young people want to come to London and learn English in a world city, as against the other way round
The era of Polish plumbers yearning to live and work in Bradford or Cumbernauld is over. Have you not been to Krakow recently?
I have not been to Krakow, but both Krakow and Gdansk are highly recommended by friends. As I can jump just jump on a train at Hauptbahnhof, I really should do this.
Thank you for the encouragement.
Krakow is stunning. A jewel of a city. It arguably has the most beautiful "piazza" in the world, it possibly rivals St Mark's Square, and does bukkake all over Piazza Navona, Place de la Concorde, Trafalgar Sq, etc
Of course not all of Poland is like this. But a visit is a must, to see how Eastern Europe has improved (they have tripled their GDP per capita since EU membership) and how they have managed to do it while keeping crime low, and by simply rebuildig as was all the architecture destroyed in World War Two rather than - like us - trying to build American style car cities or hideous brutalist shite. They got it right, we got it wrong
GPs only initial provide a sick note (or fit note as it is now named in Orwellian fashion).
If someone needs to be off long term sick and claim ESA benefit then GP is nothing to do with it after the initial short period. Sunak says crack new specialist teams will assess people. They already do you ignorant twat. In fact your government pays them millions every year to do these assessments which ill and disabled people loath because they are so utterly shite and badly carried out.
Even Johnson was better than this spreadsheet loving idiot.
Are they the same as the crack army of supply teachers who would break strikes? We have full employment. There isn't a body of specialist anyone available. Especially on the pittance a Tory government with no concept of market forces offers.
So increase wages, increase productivity, let unproductive businesses that can't cope with higher wages go out of business and let living standards improve because we are earning more as we're more productive.
That's the only way to reach an equilibrium.
Importing more people to fill vacancies no more works than importing people allows them to "steal jobs". More people = more demand = more need for employment. There is no fixed number of jobs in a country, jobs are proportional to population, its wages that determines equilibrium not quantity of people.
We have six staff, which we struggle with as it is. We had two off sick today and one with an appointment this morning. So staffed at 50%. All three of us were assaulted more than once today. My eye was bleeding. We were told no supply was available. Our employer is the government. They are trying to impose a 2% settlement this year. It can't go on like this. Statutory documents are being broken every day. It simply isn't safe.
Yes and how do you change that.
Importing more people to fill the jobs imports more people's kids who need places at schools, which then means more people need to fill the jobs that your colleagues already struggle to fill. Its a never ending loop that can't be broken as jobs and population are proportional to each other.
I'm perfectly fine with immigration, at any volume. It could go up from where it is now and I wouldn't care, but it wouldn't fill any employment gap as it can't, its not possible to do so, since jobs and population are in proportion to each other.
Or we could pay yourself and your colleagues a decent wage that attracts people to fill those vacancies, instead of other jobs, and other less productive and less necessary job roles die off and we reach a new equilibrium.
The problem isn't free movement, or the lack thereof. The problem is paying less than what is required to fill the roles and a 2% settlement makes the problem worse too.
Do you disagree with any of that?
I never mentioned immigration. We need paying properly for the role we do. Ànd less lecturing that we are layabouts leeching off the "productive" sectors.
I agree you need paying properly for the role you do, which is what I said. Hence I started my original response to you with: So increase wages ...
"We can't fill vacancies" = "we can't fill vacancies at these wages". That's a problem that can be fixed, its just a fix that some people don't want to take.
It's a route the Tory Party won't take. We have lost two of our best TA's already just this term, it's four days old. One to a call centre and one to a factory production line. Both on £300+ a month extra. And neither assaulted on a daily basis. 12 years experience lost. And both could hack it. It's just pay. Yet when we ask for £3 k a year extra we are told we're greedy and it's unaffordable.
What's your point?
I'm agreeing with you that pay needs to change. I'm agreeing with you the Tories need to go.
The solution to the problem is to pay the right wage for the right job. Paying below equilibrium leads to "employee shortages" and demand is more than supply, and paying above equilibrium leads to unemployment as supply exceeds demand.
Currently we're in the former position. It used to be the latter in this country, but its not right now, hence why we have so much vacancies and not much unemployment.
Changing the quantity of people is an irrelevant factor, since jobs are in proportion to population. The only way to solve the shortage is to raise pay to the point that people take those jobs and unproductive jobs die off and are left permanently unfilled.
I made my point. You jumped in to argue the toss about free movement. Which I never mentioned. I can't take another day like today. It is all about refusal to pay the market rate because we are public sector. It is pure prejudice. Not from you. But it's very common in here. I'm close to done serving the most marginalised. We all are. The rest of you can reap what you sowed.
Fair enough, I think we're talking cross-purposes.
The reason I was talking about free movement is because other people have said the only way to fill vacancies like yours is to import more people.
I'm saying no, the way we fill vacancies like yours is to pay people like you a decent salary for the job they're doing.
I guess you can agree with that?
PS I'm sorry for the shit you're dealing with. Sadly it doesn't surprise me.
Yeah. We are. Peace. It's been the worst day I can recall. And I haven't been to A+E. Sorry if I've been a bit spiky. Breathe. It's Friday.
Dude, are you serious that so many of your staff were assaulted in one day? How and why? Where are you?
My profound sympathies
It's an Alternative Provision Unit of a special school. It's a bit run of the mill. It does boil my piss when generalisations about bone idle unproductive public sector workers are thrown about. Most of my staff could get more in Aldi. Was a little more hitty, kicky and throwy today than normal. Lighter on the rape threats. So there's that.
Jeez. If you ever want someone to write about it in the Knapper's Gazette, chuck me a PM
The significance of the EU offer is that it shows that the EU gained more from dumping its surplus young people on the UK than the UK did.
If it was something that the UK gained more from then the EU wouldn't want it back.
In an age of declining birth rates, worldwide, no one is "dumping surplus young people" you pillock. Young people are much in demand. This is the EU genuinely offering to let our young people freely move around the EU so that theirs can come here and learn English etc. Reintroducing the social dynamism we lost with Brexit (which I regretted even as I voted Leave)
It comes with strings attached, it will be a negotiation, but it is - prima facie - a win for the UK because so many more young people want to come to London and learn English in a world city, as against the other way round
The era of Polish plumbers yearning to live and work in Bradford or Cumbernauld is over. Have you not been to Krakow recently?
I have not been to Krakow, but both Krakow and Gdansk are highly recommended by friends. As I can jump just jump on a train at Hauptbahnhof, I really should do this.
Thank you for the encouragement.
Gdansk is well worth a visit - and Sopot in summer. Also, take the road to Hel....
The Trojmiasto- Gdansk-Gdynia-Sopot is certainly worth a visit, and so is Wrocław and Poznan in the west and Lublin in the east. I can also recommend the mountains south of Kraków, especially around. Zakopane. Torun, Gniezno and Częstochowa are smaller places that are also quite interesting.
IPSOS today. Keir Starmer’s ratings have also fallen since February. 25% are satisfied with his performance as Labour leader (-4) and 56% are dissatisfied (+1). His net score of -31 is his worst as Labour leader since he recorded a -29 in May 2021
SKS fans?
You make a compelling case to remove Starmer. But who do you replace him with this close to an election? And remember your boy Burnham isn't even an MP, so it's not him.
In a meeting of the UNSC, Russia, China, and France voted in favour of accepting Palestine as a full UN member. (So did nine of the 10 temporary UNSC members.) The USA voted against. (No other country did.) Britain abstained. (So did Switzerland.)
GPs only initial provide a sick note (or fit note as it is now named in Orwellian fashion).
If someone needs to be off long term sick and claim ESA benefit then GP is nothing to do with it after the initial short period. Sunak says crack new specialist teams will assess people. They already do you ignorant twat. In fact your government pays them millions every year to do these assessments which ill and disabled people loath because they are so utterly shite and badly carried out.
Even Johnson was better than this spreadsheet loving idiot.
Are they the same as the crack army of supply teachers who would break strikes? We have full employment. There isn't a body of specialist anyone available. Especially on the pittance a Tory government with no concept of market forces offers.
So increase wages, increase productivity, let unproductive businesses that can't cope with higher wages go out of business and let living standards improve because we are earning more as we're more productive.
That's the only way to reach an equilibrium.
Importing more people to fill vacancies no more works than importing people allows them to "steal jobs". More people = more demand = more need for employment. There is no fixed number of jobs in a country, jobs are proportional to population, its wages that determines equilibrium not quantity of people.
We have six staff, which we struggle with as it is. We had two off sick today and one with an appointment this morning. So staffed at 50%. All three of us were assaulted more than once today. My eye was bleeding. We were told no supply was available. Our employer is the government. They are trying to impose a 2% settlement this year. It can't go on like this. Statutory documents are being broken every day. It simply isn't safe.
Yes and how do you change that.
Importing more people to fill the jobs imports more people's kids who need places at schools, which then means more people need to fill the jobs that your colleagues already struggle to fill. Its a never ending loop that can't be broken as jobs and population are proportional to each other.
I'm perfectly fine with immigration, at any volume. It could go up from where it is now and I wouldn't care, but it wouldn't fill any employment gap as it can't, its not possible to do so, since jobs and population are in proportion to each other.
Or we could pay yourself and your colleagues a decent wage that attracts people to fill those vacancies, instead of other jobs, and other less productive and less necessary job roles die off and we reach a new equilibrium.
The problem isn't free movement, or the lack thereof. The problem is paying less than what is required to fill the roles and a 2% settlement makes the problem worse too.
Do you disagree with any of that?
EU immigration fulfilled a need. Not only do our people not want to do shite jobs, but the home grown potential labour force we need to do those jobs are also incapable through their inferior education, intellect and work ethic. You can pay them three times the living wage, and they will still be incapable of doing the task in hand. The EU workforce was mobile, they had 27 other similar lifestyled countries they could freely move to to further their careers, and there would have been a churn of staff as some left and others replaced them, although of course many stayed and integrated into our little nation.
When we told them all to sling their hook and clear off, and most obliged, Boris Johnson explained we would need to replace these EU workers with "our friends from the Indian Subcontinent". Indeed that's what we have done and in vast numbers. Remember our people are incapable to complete certain repetitive jobs. It doesn't bother me, but these people from outside Europe are quite content to stay, but that does appear to be bothering those people like yourself, Suella Braverman and Robert Jenrick who told the Europeans to f*** off after Brexit.
A youth movement scheme is not FoM because it would be on a "no access to public funds" basis. We'd probably not even charge the annual healthcare fee. We have similar schemes with Australia, for example, and no one calls that FoM.
So long as young europeans aren't claiming housing benefit or other public funds, this leaver doesn't object at all.
(Actually, you could expand it to 18-100 and, so long as it was no access to public funds, I could probably be persuaded.)
Sometimes it's wise to have a plan B, or even a plan C, just in case politics doesn't go the way one expected.
When the fight, fight, fight has drained out of one, there are always new Aldis, Lidls, Home Bargains and B and M stores to open with one's ceremonial sword.
The significance of the EU offer is that it shows that the EU gained more from dumping its surplus young people on the UK than the UK did.
If it was something that the UK gained more from then the EU wouldn't want it back.
In an age of declining birth rates, worldwide, no one is "dumping surplus young people" you pillock. Young people are much in demand. This is the EU genuinely offering to let our young people freely move around tje EU so that theirs can come here and learn English etc. Reintroducing the social dynamism we lost with Brexit (which I regretted even as I voted Leave)
It comes with strings attached, it will be a negotiation, but it is - prima facie - a win for the UK because so many more young people want to come to London and learn English in a world city, than the other way round
The era of Polush plumbers yearning to live and work in Bradford or Cumbernauld is over. Have you not been to Krakow recently?
Perhaps you should look at youth unemployment rates before you expose your ignorance.
Spain 28% Italy 23% France 18%
And there's nothing to stop the UK letting in young people with the required skillsets now.
12.8% in the UK and 12.3% in Poland.
The higher rates in those Western European countries you quote (which weren’t ever a big source of youth migration to the UK anyway) reflect structural features of their labour markets where most jobs require more qualifications than the equivalent jobs in Britain, which creates a barrier to entry for the very young but is also one reason labour productivity is higher. That’s very different from them having surplus youth.
It suggests they have unemployable youth.
We really don't need any more people with low level skillsets - we have more than enough of those already.
Not to mention that many of the people who would be attracted to come to this country might well originate outside the European continent.
The sort of people Leon is normally in a fury about when it comes to immigration.
We have just imported 1.4 MILLION people in two years, plus 60k a year on the boats. I really don't see how it can get any worse plus this deal allows our kids to work and learn and love across Europe
IPSOS today. Keir Starmer’s ratings have also fallen since February. 25% are satisfied with his performance as Labour leader (-4) and 56% are dissatisfied (+1). His net score of -31 is his worst as Labour leader since he recorded a -29 in May 2021
SKS fans?
You make a compelling case to remove Starmer. But who do you replace him with this close to an election? And remember your boy Burnham isn't even an MP, so it's not him.
IPSOS today. Keir Starmer’s ratings have also fallen since February. 25% are satisfied with his performance as Labour leader (-4) and 56% are dissatisfied (+1). His net score of -31 is his worst as Labour leader since he recorded a -29 in May 2021
SKS fans?
You make a compelling case to remove Starmer. But who do you replace him with this close to an election?
It's utterly antithetical to Labour's interests to make Brexit work any better. They want to keep the pain and frustration high enough to justify jettisoning the whole thing.
It's laughably innocent to suppose they are going to do something that makes the tories' epoch defining mission anything more than a disaster that will haunt them for decades.
Wasn't there an accusation some members of the SNP finance committee resigned because the Chief Executive wouldn't let them see the books or something? I may have that wrong, but if correct even the best interpretation is not great.
Yes.
Chapman then resigned as treasurer in 2021 after protesting that he had not had enough access to the party’s financial information.
And just as she has no interest in arguing about why she is correct, when it comes to her ideological opponents — Leftists, educationalists, environmentalists, Tory wets, the legal establishment, the Westminster blob — she is equally uninterested in explaining why they are wrong. Everything she disagrees with is basically the fault of Michel Foucault, who she “discovered while taking a course in political sociology”.
And just as she has no interest in arguing about why she is correct, when it comes to her ideological opponents — Leftists, educationalists, environmentalists, Tory wets, the legal establishment, the Westminster blob — she is equally uninterested in explaining why they are wrong. Everything she disagrees with is basically the fault of Michel Foucault, who she “discovered while taking a course in political sociology”.
It is going to be a quite monumental irony if, in the end, I decide to vote Tory again (even tho I despise them) because the Labour leader is too much of a hardcore dogmatic "red line" Teresa May-esque Brexiteer
We all know you're voting Tory whatever.
I don't. So well done you for knowing my own mind better than me
I HATE this modern Tory party. Talking rightwing but acting left, on almost every issue, they are pathetic and they deserve extinction
But really, this abject nonsense from Starmer on EU Youth Mobility? It makes me despair for our country
I agree it's a bad decision if true - I'd still like to see an actual statement from Labour to convince me they are really taking that stance - all I've seen is indirect reports.
The FT headline, which I have screenshot below, is pretty clear. Labour are rebuffing this generous offer because it "crosses their Brexit red lines"
I am praying this is a tactical error which they will amend when they realise what a misjudgment it is, let's hope that is the case; I fear Starmer really means it because he is genuinely cowardly and careerist. Fucksake!
I presume because the FT are putting it in those terms they have something concrete from Labour but where's the official Labour statement?
It's almost certainly wishful thinking on my part, I get that, but it has been known for the press to inflate or interpret a position. BBC notes that 'Labour has said it has "no plans for a youth mobility scheme" if it wins the general election later this year' which I could well believe but isn't quite the same as the FT's 'red lines' stance.
Time will tell, I guess.
Here's the Labour statement according to the Independent:
A Labour spokesperson said: “This is a proposal from the EU Commission to EU member states, not to the UK. It has come about because the UK Government is reportedly approaching other European countries to try to establish mobility arrangements.
“Labour has no plans for a youth mobility scheme. We have already suggested some tangible ways that we would look to improve the relationship and deliver for British businesses and consumers, including seeking a veterinary agreement to tackle trade barriers, mutual recognition of professional qualifications and improved touring opportunities for artists.
“A Labour government would seek to improve the UK’s working relationship with the EU within our red lines – no return to the single market, customs union or free movement.”
And just as she has no interest in arguing about why she is correct, when it comes to her ideological opponents — Leftists, educationalists, environmentalists, Tory wets, the legal establishment, the Westminster blob — she is equally uninterested in explaining why they are wrong. Everything she disagrees with is basically the fault of Michel Foucault, who she “discovered while taking a course in political sociology”.
"Offshore wind farms get approval to double capacity
Plans to extend two Norfolk offshore wind farms have been given permission to go ahead by Claire Coutinho, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.
Equinor, who co-owns the Sheringham Shoal and Dudgeon offshore wind farms in Norfolk, said it hopes the plans would mean it could double capacity, external and provide renewable energy to power an additional 785,000 homes"
Seems like a pissweak Israeli response if that's it.
Netanyahu is weak.
PB’s very own John Bolton is dissapointed.
Don’t worry Bart, it’s unlikely to be the only retaliatory strike.
I think it will be. Netanyahu is weak and prefers sabre rattling to action.
Still not dealt with Hamas in Rafah. He'd rather let the war drag on and everyone suffer for longer than actually go and fight Hamas in Rafah. That this impotent response is all he's done is par for the course.
"The suspicion that Putin is recruiting agents in our country to carry out attacks on German soil is extremely grave. We will not allow Putin to bring his terror to Germany. This was communicated to the Russian ambassador today during a summons. "
Seems like a pissweak Israeli response if that's it.
Netanyahu is weak.
PB’s very own John Bolton is dissapointed.
Don’t worry Bart, it’s unlikely to be the only retaliatory strike.
I think it will be. Netanyahu is weak and prefers sabre rattling to action.
Still not dealt with Hamas in Rafah. He'd rather let the war drag on and everyone suffer for longer than actually go and fight Hamas in Rafah. That this impotent response is all he's done is par for the course.
What do you think his response to Israel should have been. I know little of this whole conflict to be honest but what I read from those who day it appears all,sides do not want an escalation. Be it israel.,the US, hezbollah or Iran. So how does he respond to save face but not escalate.
And just as she has no interest in arguing about why she is correct, when it comes to her ideological opponents — Leftists, educationalists, environmentalists, Tory wets, the legal establishment, the Westminster blob — she is equally uninterested in explaining why they are wrong. Everything she disagrees with is basically the fault of Michel Foucault, who she “discovered while taking a course in political sociology”.
It is going to be a quite monumental irony if, in the end, I decide to vote Tory again (even tho I despise them) because the Labour leader is too much of a hardcore dogmatic "red line" Teresa May-esque Brexiteer
We all know you're voting Tory whatever.
I don't. So well done you for knowing my own mind better than me
I HATE this modern Tory party. Talking rightwing but acting left, on almost every issue, they are pathetic and they deserve extinction
But really, this abject nonsense from Starmer on EU Youth Mobility? It makes me despair for our country
I agree it's a bad decision if true - I'd still like to see an actual statement from Labour to convince me they are really taking that stance - all I've seen is indirect reports.
The FT headline, which I have screenshot below, is pretty clear. Labour are rebuffing this generous offer because it "crosses their Brexit red lines"
I am praying this is a tactical error which they will amend when they realise what a misjudgment it is, let's hope that is the case; I fear Starmer really means it because he is genuinely cowardly and careerist. Fucksake!
I presume because the FT are putting it in those terms they have something concrete from Labour but where's the official Labour statement?
It's almost certainly wishful thinking on my part, I get that, but it has been known for the press to inflate or interpret a position. BBC notes that 'Labour has said it has "no plans for a youth mobility scheme" if it wins the general election later this year' which I could well believe but isn't quite the same as the FT's 'red lines' stance.
Time will tell, I guess.
Here's the Labour statement according to the Independent:
A Labour spokesperson said: “This is a proposal from the EU Commission to EU member states, not to the UK. It has come about because the UK Government is reportedly approaching other European countries to try to establish mobility arrangements.
“Labour has no plans for a youth mobility scheme. We have already suggested some tangible ways that we would look to improve the relationship and deliver for British businesses and consumers, including seeking a veterinary agreement to tackle trade barriers, mutual recognition of professional qualifications and improved touring opportunities for artists.
“A Labour government would seek to improve the UK’s working relationship with the EU within our red lines – no return to the single market, customs union or free movement.”
So 'no plans' rather than 'no way'. Red lines means no return to 'free movement' hmmm
Remember, at all times, that Starmer is a proven lawyer. As such, his professional formation will have embedded two points:
1 Words mean exactly what they mean- no more, no less. 'No plans' means 'no plans', rather than 'not happening'. This principle can be used in good and bad ways.
(It's the reason for the alignment model in D+D. Good and evil is a separate axis to chaotic and lawful. Johnson and Truss are chaos, Starmer and Sunak are lawfulness. Where each of them lies on the good/evil axis is another matter. Whether you can actually run a country on chaotic good, or whether entropy then destroys your plans, is another matter still.
2. Don't ask a question in public unless you already know the answer in private. I reckon Labour would rather this EU offer hadn't happened yet- SKS simply doesn't want to talk about Europe just yet. There are still enough people out their for whom 'Brexit Is In Peril' would be a resonant reason to vote Conservative.
And just as she has no interest in arguing about why she is correct, when it comes to her ideological opponents — Leftists, educationalists, environmentalists, Tory wets, the legal establishment, the Westminster blob — she is equally uninterested in explaining why they are wrong. Everything she disagrees with is basically the fault of Michel Foucault, who she “discovered while taking a course in political sociology”.
People who name books, articles or campaigns along the lines of "[X] Years to Save the [Y]" should be tried for crimes against reason.
Considering she is going to be an opposition backbencher for the next decade, or not in Parliament at all, looks like the West cannot be saved.
Her problem was a lack of savings...
I thought it was more that she was so arrogant that she was simply unaware of her own ignorance. The resulting incompetence destroyed her government within a matter of a few days. After all she did come within a day or so of a total meltdown of the entire pension system of the UK. Lest we forget...
Seems like a pissweak Israeli response if that's it.
Netanyahu is weak.
PB’s very own John Bolton is dissapointed.
Don’t worry Bart, it’s unlikely to be the only retaliatory strike.
I think it will be. Netanyahu is weak and prefers sabre rattling to action.
Still not dealt with Hamas in Rafah. He'd rather let the war drag on and everyone suffer for longer than actually go and fight Hamas in Rafah. That this impotent response is all he's done is par for the course.
What do you think his response to Israel should have been. I know little of this whole conflict to be honest but what I read from those who day it appears all,sides do not want an escalation. Be it israel.,the US, hezbollah or Iran. So how does he respond to save face but not escalate.
Not everyone. I think there should have been an escalation.
Ideally striking Iran hard enough it leads to full regime change.
Failing that, at a bare minimum, striking and destroying all of Irans nuclear facilities and program.
For the nth time, people can register to vote at places other than their main address, or multiple addresses, including students for example. They merely need a reasonable connection to the address. If they were splitting their time between two addresses there is nothing wrong with one of them choosing address A and the other address B.
It is going to be a quite monumental irony if, in the end, I decide to vote Tory again (even tho I despise them) because the Labour leader is too much of a hardcore dogmatic "red line" Teresa May-esque Brexiteer
We all know you're voting Tory whatever.
I don't. So well done you for knowing my own mind better than me
I HATE this modern Tory party. Talking rightwing but acting left, on almost every issue, they are pathetic and they deserve extinction
But really, this abject nonsense from Starmer on EU Youth Mobility? It makes me despair for our country
I agree it's a bad decision if true - I'd still like to see an actual statement from Labour to convince me they are really taking that stance - all I've seen is indirect reports.
The FT headline, which I have screenshot below, is pretty clear. Labour are rebuffing this generous offer because it "crosses their Brexit red lines"
I am praying this is a tactical error which they will amend when they realise what a misjudgment it is, let's hope that is the case; I fear Starmer really means it because he is genuinely cowardly and careerist. Fucksake!
I presume because the FT are putting it in those terms they have something concrete from Labour but where's the official Labour statement?
It's almost certainly wishful thinking on my part, I get that, but it has been known for the press to inflate or interpret a position. BBC notes that 'Labour has said it has "no plans for a youth mobility scheme" if it wins the general election later this year' which I could well believe but isn't quite the same as the FT's 'red lines' stance.
Time will tell, I guess.
Here's the Labour statement according to the Independent:
A Labour spokesperson said: “This is a proposal from the EU Commission to EU member states, not to the UK. It has come about because the UK Government is reportedly approaching other European countries to try to establish mobility arrangements.
“Labour has no plans for a youth mobility scheme. We have already suggested some tangible ways that we would look to improve the relationship and deliver for British businesses and consumers, including seeking a veterinary agreement to tackle trade barriers, mutual recognition of professional qualifications and improved touring opportunities for artists.
“A Labour government would seek to improve the UK’s working relationship with the EU within our red lines – no return to the single market, customs union or free movement.”
So 'no plans' rather than 'no way'. Red lines means no return to 'free movement' hmmm
Remember, at all times, that Starmer is a proven lawyer. As such, his professional formation will have embedded two points:
1 Words mean exactly what they mean- no more, no less. 'No plans' means 'no plans', rather than 'not happening'. This principle can be used in good and bad ways.
(It's the reason for the alignment model in D+D. Good and evil is a separate axis to chaotic and lawful. Johnson and Truss are chaos, Starmer and Sunak are lawfulness. Where each of them lies on the good/evil axis is another matter. Whether you can actually run a country on chaotic good, or whether entropy then destroys your plans, is another matter still.
2. Don't ask a question in public unless you already know the answer in private. I reckon Labour would rather this EU offer hadn't happened yet- SKS simply doesn't want to talk about Europe just yet. There are still enough people out their for whom 'Brexit Is In Peril' would be a resonant reason to vote Conservative.
I think the very first line tells you everything 'This is a proposal from the EU Commission to EU member states, not to the UK.' Labour don't want to consider it until there is some agreement among EU states and some kind of concrete proposal to the UK, which is fair enough. I'd agree they could have sounded more positive, but it looks like a misrepresentation to say that Labour 'rejected the offer because it crosses their red lines'. Especially when there isn't actually an offer yet.
Seems like a pissweak Israeli response if that's it.
Netanyahu is weak.
PB’s very own John Bolton is dissapointed.
Don’t worry Bart, it’s unlikely to be the only retaliatory strike.
I think it will be. Netanyahu is weak and prefers sabre rattling to action.
Still not dealt with Hamas in Rafah. He'd rather let the war drag on and everyone suffer for longer than actually go and fight Hamas in Rafah. That this impotent response is all he's done is par for the course.
What do you think his response to Israel should have been. I know little of this whole conflict to be honest but what I read from those who day it appears all,sides do not want an escalation. Be it israel.,the US, hezbollah or Iran. So how does he respond to save face but not escalate.
Not everyone. I think there should have been an escalation.
Ideally striking Iran hard enough it leads to full regime change.
Failing that, at a bare minimum, striking and destroying all of Irans nuclear facilities and program.
Key stakeholders in the middle east. Israel, US, Iran and BartholemewRoberts.
Seems like a pissweak Israeli response if that's it.
Netanyahu is weak.
PB’s very own John Bolton is dissapointed.
Don’t worry Bart, it’s unlikely to be the only retaliatory strike.
I think it will be. Netanyahu is weak and prefers sabre rattling to action.
Still not dealt with Hamas in Rafah. He'd rather let the war drag on and everyone suffer for longer than actually go and fight Hamas in Rafah. That this impotent response is all he's done is par for the course.
What do you think his response to Israel should have been. I know little of this whole conflict to be honest but what I read from those who day it appears all,sides do not want an escalation. Be it israel.,the US, hezbollah or Iran. So how does he respond to save face but not escalate.
Not everyone. I think there should have been an escalation.
Ideally striking Iran hard enough it leads to full regime change.
Failing that, at a bare minimum, striking and destroying all of Irans nuclear facilities and program.
Has regime change ever been accomplished by aerial bombardment alone?
Has it ever been achieved by anything short of occupying the regime's capital?
Seems like a pissweak Israeli response if that's it.
Netanyahu is weak.
PB’s very own John Bolton is dissapointed.
Don’t worry Bart, it’s unlikely to be the only retaliatory strike.
I think it will be. Netanyahu is weak and prefers sabre rattling to action.
Still not dealt with Hamas in Rafah. He'd rather let the war drag on and everyone suffer for longer than actually go and fight Hamas in Rafah. That this impotent response is all he's done is par for the course.
What do you think his response to Israel should have been. I know little of this whole conflict to be honest but what I read from those who day it appears all,sides do not want an escalation. Be it israel.,the US, hezbollah or Iran. So how does he respond to save face but not escalate.
Not everyone. I think there should have been an escalation.
Ideally striking Iran hard enough it leads to full regime change.
Failing that, at a bare minimum, striking and destroying all of Irans nuclear facilities and program.
Has regime change ever been accomplished by aerial bombardment alone?
Has it ever been achieved by anything short of occupying the regime's capital?
Why? They are adults. They register where they want providing it is legal and that can be multiple addresses providing they only vote once. This is normal for children who have more than one residence eg my children were on the register elsewhere when they were students for instance as well as at our house (they can pick one or the other or both). If their parents have two houses between them then either or both are reasonable. And if both are in the same constituency what on earth is the issue as there is no motivation to pick one or the other (even though that would be both legal and normal)
It's utterly antithetical to Labour's interests to make Brexit work any better. They want to keep the pain and frustration high enough to justify jettisoning the whole thing.
It's laughably innocent to suppose they are going to do something that makes the tories' epoch defining mission anything more than a disaster that will haunt them for decades.
Their policy is to ease border frictions through further bilateral deals so this would be a hell of a 3D chess move, if it were true.
You could make a better case that they'll do all that and then say, "why shouldn’t we have a vote?", to further that cause but I think it's a lost one.
Both the EU and UK have moved on. There will be no return to the status quo ante-bellum pre-2016, which is just wishful thinking.
"The suspicion that Putin is recruiting agents in our country to carry out attacks on German soil is extremely grave. We will not allow Putin to bring his terror to Germany. This was communicated to the Russian ambassador today during a summons. "
A Polish national has been arrested for spying for Russia as well. The suggestion is that there was a plot to take out Zelensky while he was travelling through the country, and the arrested man was passing flight details to the Russian security services.
For the nth time, people can register to vote at places other than their main address, or multiple addresses, including students for example. They merely need a reasonable connection to the address. If they were splitting their time between two addresses there is nothing wrong with one of them choosing address A and the other address B.
It is going to be a quite monumental irony if, in the end, I decide to vote Tory again (even tho I despise them) because the Labour leader is too much of a hardcore dogmatic "red line" Teresa May-esque Brexiteer
We all know you're voting Tory whatever.
I don't. So well done you for knowing my own mind better than me
I HATE this modern Tory party. Talking rightwing but acting left, on almost every issue, they are pathetic and they deserve extinction
But really, this abject nonsense from Starmer on EU Youth Mobility? It makes me despair for our country
I agree it's a bad decision if true - I'd still like to see an actual statement from Labour to convince me they are really taking that stance - all I've seen is indirect reports.
The FT headline, which I have screenshot below, is pretty clear. Labour are rebuffing this generous offer because it "crosses their Brexit red lines"
I am praying this is a tactical error which they will amend when they realise what a misjudgment it is, let's hope that is the case; I fear Starmer really means it because he is genuinely cowardly and careerist. Fucksake!
I presume because the FT are putting it in those terms they have something concrete from Labour but where's the official Labour statement?
It's almost certainly wishful thinking on my part, I get that, but it has been known for the press to inflate or interpret a position. BBC notes that 'Labour has said it has "no plans for a youth mobility scheme" if it wins the general election later this year' which I could well believe but isn't quite the same as the FT's 'red lines' stance.
Time will tell, I guess.
Here's the Labour statement according to the Independent:
A Labour spokesperson said: “This is a proposal from the EU Commission to EU member states, not to the UK. It has come about because the UK Government is reportedly approaching other European countries to try to establish mobility arrangements.
“Labour has no plans for a youth mobility scheme. We have already suggested some tangible ways that we would look to improve the relationship and deliver for British businesses and consumers, including seeking a veterinary agreement to tackle trade barriers, mutual recognition of professional qualifications and improved touring opportunities for artists.
“A Labour government would seek to improve the UK’s working relationship with the EU within our red lines – no return to the single market, customs union or free movement.”
So 'no plans' rather than 'no way'. Red lines means no return to 'free movement' hmmm
Remember, at all times, that Starmer is a proven lawyer. As such, his professional formation will have embedded two points:
1 Words mean exactly what they mean- no more, no less. 'No plans' means 'no plans', rather than 'not happening'. This principle can be used in good and bad ways.
(It's the reason for the alignment model in D+D. Good and evil is a separate axis to chaotic and lawful. Johnson and Truss are chaos, Starmer and Sunak are lawfulness. Where each of them lies on the good/evil axis is another matter. Whether you can actually run a country on chaotic good, or whether entropy then destroys your plans, is another matter still.
2. Don't ask a question in public unless you already know the answer in private. I reckon Labour would rather this EU offer hadn't happened yet- SKS simply doesn't want to talk about Europe just yet. There are still enough people out their for whom 'Brexit Is In Peril' would be a resonant reason to vote Conservative.
I think the very first line tells you everything 'This is a proposal from the EU Commission to EU member states, not to the UK.' Labour don't want to consider it until there is some agreement among EU states and some kind of concrete proposal to the UK, which is fair enough. I'd agree they could have sounded more positive, but it looks like a misrepresentation to say that Labour 'rejected the offer because it crosses their red lines'. Especially when there isn't actually an offer yet.
It’s something that might be able to work if designed carefully, but the devil is going to be in the detail. Similar UK schemes exist with Australia and NZ - but they have definied numbers of visas, a limited length of stay with no extension possible, and no recourse to public funds.
Comments
"We can't fill vacancies" = "we can't fill vacancies at these wages". That's a problem that can be fixed, its just a fix that some people don't want to take.
If its early retirees then why should they - they've worked and saved their money so that they can now afford to stop work and use the extra free time while they're still healthy.
If its oldies in receipt of state pensions then you'd be better off cutting the money the government spends on them - but there's little chance of that happening.
It comes with strings attached, it will be a negotiation, but it is - prima facie - a win for the UK because so many more young people want to come to London and learn English in a world city, as against the other way round
The era of Polish plumbers yearning to live and work in Bradford or Cumbernauld is over. Have you not been to Krakow recently?
They don't all need to fail, only the unproductive ones that can't afford wages at the equilibrium point need to fail.
Surviving businesses have employees.
Employees have better wages.
The country is more productive and better off per capita.
We have lost two of our best TA's already just this term, it's four days old.
One to a call centre and one to a factory production line. Both on £300+ a month extra. And neither assaulted on a daily basis.
12 years experience lost. And both could hack it. It's just pay.
Yet when we ask for £3 k a year extra we are told we're greedy and it's unaffordable.
Spain 28%
Italy 23%
France 18%
And there's nothing to stop the UK letting in young people with the required skillsets now.
I'm agreeing with you that pay needs to change. I'm agreeing with you the Tories need to go.
The solution to the problem is to pay the right wage for the right job. Paying below equilibrium leads to "employee shortages" and demand is more than supply, and paying above equilibrium leads to unemployment as supply exceeds demand.
Currently we're in the former position. It used to be the latter in this country, but its not right now, hence why we have so much vacancies and not much unemployment.
Changing the quantity of people is an irrelevant factor, since jobs are in proportion to population. The only way to solve the shortage is to raise pay to the point that people take those jobs and unproductive jobs die off and are left permanently unfilled.
A very imaginative picture, granted. Unicorn scampering about in the Field of Growth. A Centaur asleep by the river of trickle-down economics over there. etc.
The higher rates in those Western European countries you quote (which weren’t ever a big source of youth migration to the UK anyway) reflect structural features of their labour markets where most jobs require more qualifications than the equivalent jobs in Britain, which creates a barrier to entry for the very young but is also one reason labour productivity is higher. That’s very different from them having surplus youth.
You jumped in to argue the toss about free movement. Which I never mentioned.
I can't take another day like today.
It is all about refusal to pay the market rate because we are public sector.
It is pure prejudice. Not from you. But it's very common in here. I'm close to done serving the most marginalised. We all are.
The rest of you can reap what you sowed.
The reason I was talking about free movement is because other people have said the only way to fill vacancies like yours is to import more people.
I'm saying no, the way we fill vacancies like yours is to pay people like you a decent salary for the job they're doing.
I guess you can agree with that?
PS I'm sorry for the shit you're dealing with. Sadly it doesn't surprise me.
But here's the deal: WE ALREADY GET THESE ANYWAY. We have 60,000 crossing the Channel every year, and the figure is rising. We are apparently incapable of throwing out any of them. We are pathetic
Right now our attitude to immigration seems to be, If you are a foreign rapist, great, please come in by dinghy, and we will give you a house, and we won't throw you out because, er, you might go to jail in your home country for being a rapist, so please rape our women instead. Mranwhile heaven forfend that young honest Brits should have the opportunity to live and work in the Alps or Spain or Vienna or Denmark, no, let's just keep absorbing Afghan rapists that's who we want
We have contrived the most maximally stupid migration policy in history. We take the criminal dregs, we let them stay BECAUSE they are criminal, and we refuse to let our own young people roam free, in case we get too many good hardworking plumbers from Gdansk. I cannot think of a worse state of affairs when it comes to immigration
It means people working for a living can keep more of their income. Abolishing National Insurance altogether and taxing earned income at the same rate as unearned incomes would be even better.
We really don't need any more people with low level skillsets - we have more than enough of those already.
Not to mention that many of the people who would be attracted to come to this country might well originate outside the European continent.
The sort of people Leon is normally in a fury about when it comes to immigration.
It certainly doesn't warrant the type of language used in your post, which ought to cause you some shame frankly.
Bonkers and brilliant.
The fifties music is great, too.
It's been the worst day I can recall. And I haven't been to A+E.
Sorry if I've been a bit spiky. Breathe. It's Friday.
Plans to extend two Norfolk offshore wind farms have been given permission to go ahead by Claire Coutinho, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.
Equinor, who co-owns the Sheringham Shoal and Dudgeon offshore wind farms in Norfolk, said it hopes the plans would mean it could double capacity, external and provide renewable energy to power an additional 785,000 homes"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1vw4q403yxo
Nor do I think the young people of London necessarily want even more competition for housing.
Even if it does make it easier for Jemima and Jocasta to become ski chalet maids.
My profound sympathies
Thank you for the encouragement.
As I recall, farmer's markets don't have the same requirement to have labels on the individual fruits.
The individual labels are about a half inch in diameter, and readable by both people and machines.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XPzICHxXoQ
(I never played the game, but this is a really good adaptation.)
Is that the impression that you think Vote Leave were trying to give during the campaign, or do you think they wanted to make people think that there would be no loss of trading advantage?
Of course not all of Poland is like this. But a visit is a must, to see how Eastern Europe has improved (they have tripled their GDP per capita since EU membership) and how they have managed to do it while keeping crime low, and by simply rebuildig as was all the architecture destroyed in World War Two rather than - like us - trying to build American style car cities or hideous brutalist shite. They got it right, we got it wrong
What we have is free trade, no free movement, no supremacy of EU law and no budget contributions.
In the words of Douglas Adams: Probability factor of one to one. We have normality. I repeat, we have normality. Anything you still can't cope with is therefore your own problem.
As to your romantic fantasies about British kids it sounds far more like Cliff Richard's Summer Holiday than reality.
https://modgov.waverley.gov.uk/mgElectionAreaResults.aspx?ID=486&RPID=18927698
How long is the trial expected to last ?
It's a bit run of the mill.
It does boil my piss when generalisations about bone idle unproductive public sector workers are thrown about. Most of my staff could get more in Aldi.
Was a little more hitty, kicky and throwy today
than normal.
Lighter on the rape threats. So there's that.
Alternate jurors still need to be appointed
I think in some states people don't even know which jurors of the total selected will form the 12 deciding ones, but that is not the case in New York.
Given the Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments soon on the appeal which is holding up the more serious Federal Insurrection case which was meant to start 6 weeks ago, and are expected to rule sometime in June or July, part of me wonders if the justices wanted to see the outcome of this lesser criminal trial before announcing their decision on that one - and whether to hold it off as long as possible to prevent it going to trial before the election or not.
But don't worry, I'll never bother taking an interest in your comments on here ever again.
That is from here:
https://www.numbeo.com/crime/region_rankings_current.jsp?region=150
Dunno how they measure crime figures. Their top cities for crime are
1 Bradford
2 Marseilles
3 Coventry
4 Birmingham
5 Naples
...
10 Paris
17 London
18 Dnipro
...
81 Moscow
So a bit of a joke from an "am I likely to be mugged?" POV but there you go.
Sympax
The USA voted against. (No other country did.)
Britain abstained. (So did Switzerland.)
When we told them all to sling their hook and clear off, and most obliged, Boris Johnson explained we would need to replace these EU workers with "our friends from the Indian Subcontinent". Indeed that's what we have done and in vast numbers. Remember our people are incapable to complete certain repetitive jobs. It doesn't bother me, but these people from outside Europe are quite content to stay, but that does appear to be bothering those people like yourself, Suella Braverman and Robert Jenrick who told the Europeans to f*** off after Brexit.
So long as young europeans aren't claiming housing benefit or other public funds, this leaver doesn't object at all.
(Actually, you could expand it to 18-100 and, so long as it was no access to public funds, I could probably be persuaded.)
When the fight, fight, fight has drained out of one, there are always new Aldis, Lidls, Home Bargains and B and M stores to open with one's ceremonial sword.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-68851025.amp
Elizabeth.
Mary.
TRUSS.
It's laughably innocent to suppose they are going to do something that makes the tories' epoch defining mission anything more than a disaster that will haunt them for decades.
Brace
Here we go!
"Labour MP: UK should have followed Sweden’s pandemic response"
https://unherd.com/newsroom/labour-mp-uk-should-have-followed-swedens-pandemic-response/
Chapman then resigned as treasurer in 2021 after protesting that he had not had enough access to the party’s financial information.
https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/19/colin-beattie-stands-down-as-snp-treasurer-after-arrest
And just as she has no interest in arguing about why she is correct, when it comes to her ideological opponents — Leftists, educationalists, environmentalists, Tory wets, the legal establishment, the Westminster blob — she is equally uninterested in explaining why they are wrong. Everything she disagrees with is basically the fault of Michel Foucault, who she “discovered while taking a course in political sociology”.
https://unherd.com/2024/04/why-liz-truss-will-never-repent/
CNN- Target in Iran "Not nuclear"
NBC- Israeli forces alerted US officials before the strike earlier today
Kan- "planned in such a way that Iran could contain the attack"
https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1781157919335047371
Question is now if both sides consider the confrontation "over".
That's possible; if not, escalatory steps on both sides are likely.
A Labour spokesperson said: “This is a proposal from the EU Commission to EU member states, not to the UK. It has come about because the UK Government is reportedly approaching other European countries to try to establish mobility arrangements.
“Labour has no plans for a youth mobility scheme. We have already suggested some tangible ways that we would look to improve the relationship and deliver for British businesses and consumers, including seeking a veterinary agreement to tackle trade barriers, mutual recognition of professional qualifications and improved touring opportunities for artists.
“A Labour government would seek to improve the UK’s working relationship with the EU within our red lines – no return to the single market, customs union or free movement.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/european-commission-labour-english-channel-eu-council-alan-turing-b2530954.html
So 'no plans' rather than 'no way'. Red lines means no return to 'free movement' hmmm
Netanyahu is weak.
Don’t worry Bart, it’s unlikely to be the only retaliatory strike.
Still not dealt with Hamas in Rafah. He'd rather let the war drag on and everyone suffer for longer than actually go and fight Hamas in Rafah. That this impotent response is all he's done is par for the course.
"The suspicion that Putin is recruiting agents in our country to carry out attacks on German soil is extremely grave. We will not allow Putin to bring his terror to Germany. This was communicated to the Russian ambassador today during a summons. "
https://twitter.com/GermanyDiplo/status/1780983042040881218
"Two alleged spies suspected of planning to sabotage German military aid for Ukraine have been arrested in the southern German state of Bavaria.
The two men, described as dual German-Russian nationals, were detained in Bayreuth on suspicion of spying for Russia, prosecutors say.
Interior Minister Nancy Faeser said authorities had prevented "possible explosive attacks"."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68843541
- "Devil lacks the courage of his convictions."
- "Productivity of Jack the Ripper mediocre. Proves heart not really in it."
It's not that clear to me yet what Israel have done, so I'm not sure why you'd be so quick to say it was weak?
The Web of intrigue grows larger.
1 Words mean exactly what they mean- no more, no less. 'No plans' means 'no plans', rather than 'not happening'. This principle can be used in good and bad ways.
(It's the reason for the alignment model in D+D. Good and evil is a separate axis to chaotic and lawful. Johnson and Truss are chaos, Starmer and Sunak are lawfulness. Where each of them lies on the good/evil axis is another matter. Whether you can actually run a country on chaotic good, or whether entropy then destroys your plans, is another matter still.
2. Don't ask a question in public unless you already know the answer in private. I reckon Labour would rather this EU offer hadn't happened yet- SKS simply doesn't want to talk about Europe just yet. There are still enough people out their for whom 'Brexit Is In Peril' would be a resonant reason to vote Conservative.
Ideally striking Iran hard enough it leads to full regime change.
Failing that, at a bare minimum, striking and destroying all of Irans nuclear facilities and program.
Now how do you feel about Menzies?
Has it ever been achieved by anything short of occupying the regime's capital?
How would you propose that Israel occupy Tehran?
See the fall of Gaddafi for instance.
Brace
You could make a better case that they'll do all that and then say, "why shouldn’t we have a vote?", to further that cause but I think it's a lost one.
Both the EU and UK have moved on. There will be no return to the status quo ante-bellum pre-2016, which is just wishful thinking.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13324459/Zelensky-assassination-plot-arrest-Poland-Man-held-passing-airport-details-Russian-security-services-planning-kill-Ukrainian-president.html
Nicola Sturgeon’s husband Peter Murrell charged with embezzlement