|
Post by peterboat on Oct 13, 2017 13:26:42 GMT
That is hardly what I said ....... In fact you have completely reversed it ..... Uk Immigrants to Romania or the like do not fill jobs at a lower wage, they spend money , i.e. their savings/ pensions in that country. If they are holiday second home owners then they are earning the money that they spend there, in the UK. They are not competing with the locals for scarce resources. This does not hold true for Immigrants to the UK. However, it's still true that migrants boost the economy. How do you propose to staff the NHS, without migrants? Unqualified unemployed scrotes can't do those jobs. How have migrants brought wages down? We have a baseline minimum wage. Not all migrants work in Rotherham they had to take allotments to build a new school for them how will that ever repay itself? If you take all the infrastructure cost into consideration Migrants are a huge drain on our limited resources
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Oct 13, 2017 16:41:53 GMT
How can I phrase it simply: Taking spend on migrants benefits against their tax input (possibly plus the income/profit generated by their work ) into the economy there is a surplus that benefits us all. I hope we aren't revisiting "they are all on benefits" and "they take all our jobs" common a few years back amongst the right wing.
As for "taking all the houses", why do we not have enough houses? Because the greedy Tories grabbed the money from the sale of any council houses, so they could cut taxes for their wealthy mates. They didn't allow councils to reinvest in more social housing. The private rental sector can't ever fulfill the demand. The Tory press then throw up a smokescreen of fake news, "we are poor because of immigration"
As for the wagon jumpers Mrs tabby brought in, they are illegal, they will continue to try, whatever the legal situation is. C'est la vie. Including them in a discussion on legal migration is poor maths, adding apples and oranges.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2017 17:02:18 GMT
Although this government is spectacularly failing to achieve growth in our economy it amuses me when the supporters of neo-liberalism and the free market economy are so xenophobic. Shouldn't expanding our workforce help to reach your holy grail?
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Oct 13, 2017 17:18:36 GMT
Although this government is spectacularly failing to achieve growth in our economy it amuses me when the supporters of neo-liberalism and the free market economy are so xenophobic. Shouldn't expanding our workforce help to reach your holy grail? Your problem is you think anyone who has an opposing view where money isn't everything must be labelled and dismissed as misguided. I think you'll find most people who voted out thought damn the financial consequences, our society has been turned upside down by political posturing and chasing a quick profit. Your political labelling of those who don't agree with you (not just yours ) only serves to underline bolster that view. You do write a lot I agree with, but I think your wish to follow a doctrine that has failed for decades is timid.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2017 19:23:13 GMT
Although this government is spectacularly failing to achieve growth in our economy it amuses me when the supporters of neo-liberalism and the free market economy are so xenophobic. Shouldn't expanding our workforce help to reach your holy grail? Your problem is you think anyone who has an opposing view where money isn't everything must be labelled and dismissed as misguided. I think you'll find most people who voted out thought damn the financial consequences, our society has been turned upside down by political posturing and chasing a quick profit. Your political labelling of those who don't agree with you (not just yours ) only serves to underline bolster that view. You do write a lot I agree with, but I think your wish to follow a doctrine that has failed for decades is timid. Ok, i'm interested in social equality, a fairer society, I don't see anything wrong with that. The free market in the UK combined with 'austerity' since 2008 has enriched the top 1% of society at the expense of everybody else, I don't think that can be disputed. The Conservative's principle that if the rich get richer everybody else benefits just isn't happening. Yes a Labour government would seek to renationalise some industries in order to provide a better service and to stop large profits being sucked out by shareholders... often overseas hedge funds and Sovereign wealth funds. This is not a throwback to the 70's, many European countries have nationalised railways and other industries... France, Spain and Italy have had high speed rail networks for many years whilst our network could hardly be described as efficient or high speed under private ownership could it. Labour's proposal to lower the threshold for the 45p income tax band, which currently applies to people earning above £150,000, to £80,000 and introduce a new income tax rate of 50p for anyone earning more than £123,000 might be criticised by some but it isn't comparable to the 80% tax paid by high earners in the 70's either is it. I'm sure you've read coverage of this week's report by The IMF which suggests that increasing taxes for the rich will not harm economic growth... www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/inequality-imf-international-monetary-fund-high-tax-rich-jeremy-corbyn-a7995826.html Creation of wealth should be a collective endeavour between workers, entrepreneurs, investors and government. Each contributes and each must share fairly in the rewards. Labour would invest in our crumbling infrastructure... how could it be wrong to borrow money to do this with interest rates so low? The Banking sector urgently needs reform as they build yet another credit bubble, no lessons have been learned since 2008. I've been in correspondence with my MP suggesting that the Treasury Select Commitee should reopen their inquiry into the banking sector which was halted by this years General Election and hasn't been restarted by the Tories...I wonder why. Labour will transform how our financial system operates. Following the successful example of Germany and the Nordic countries, we will establish a National Investment Bank that will bring in private capital finance to deliver £250 billion of lending power. This new public institution will support a network of regional development banks that, unlike giant City of London firms, will be dedicated to supporting inclusive growth in their communities.. A bank run in the interests of our economy not for the benefit of it's shareholders. So Labour has forward looking policies for sustainable green energy, creating an economy that works for the many not the few, a fairer taxation system, better public services and widening ownership of our economy. The manifesto is fully costed, with all current spending paid for out of taxation or redirected revenue streams. Our public services must rest on the foundation of sound finances. Labour will, therefore, set the target of eliminating the government’s deficit on day-to-day spending within five years. I would argue that current Labour policy proposals don't represent a return to 'a doctrine that has failed for decades' but reflect the aspirations of a growing percentage of the electorate who are currently being let down by government, fresh thinking and policies intended to tackle today's issues.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2017 19:37:23 GMT
I think due to the evolution of post industrial revolution capitalism we will see right wing government for at least another 20 years.
I just looked up Osborne for next PM. 50:1.
Worth a punt maybe?
I never bet on anything but it's tempting.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Oct 14, 2017 7:09:10 GMT
That is hardly what I said ....... In fact you have completely reversed it ..... Uk Immigrants to Romania or the like do not fill jobs at a lower wage, they spend money , i.e. their savings/ pensions in that country. If they are holiday second home owners then they are earning the money that they spend there, in the UK. They are not competing with the locals for scarce resources. This does not hold true for Immigrants to the UK. However, it's still true that migrants boost the economy. How do you propose to staff the NHS, without migrants? Unqualified unemployed scrotes can't do those jobs. How have migrants brought wages down? We have a baseline minimum wage. You are missing the point Jim. There is no longer a UK international road transport industry, something in which tens of thousands of people were employed prior to the 2004 and 2007 eu expansions, because it has been completely taken over by hauliers from post-Communist economies who do not pay drivers a baseline minimum wage. Hence, a movement from the UK to Italy, from Spain to Denmark, from Greece to France will all be carried out by eastern Europeans ( or "flip-flops" as they are generally referred to due to their choice of footwear). If the eu gets its way and scraps cabotage restrictions, all internal movements will go the same way. As it is, there has been no increase in pay for some 10 years now in road transport because of the inflow of flip-flops. You can't expect anybody to support the destruction of the industry in which they work.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Oct 14, 2017 7:21:27 GMT
However, it's still true that migrants boost the economy. How do you propose to staff the NHS, without migrants? Unqualified unemployed scrotes can't do those jobs. How have migrants brought wages down? We have a baseline minimum wage. You are missing the point Jim. There is no longer a UK international road transport industry, something in which tens of thousands of people were employed prior to the 2004 and 2007 eu expansions, because it has been completely taken over by hauliers from post-Communist economies who do not pay drivers a baseline minimum wage. Hence, a movement from the UK to Italy, from Spain to Denmark, from Greece to France will all be carried out by eastern Europeans ( or "flip-flops" as they are generally referred to due to their choice of footwear). If the eu gets its way and scraps cabotage restrictions, all internal movements will go the same way. As it is, there has been no increase in pay for some 10 years now in road transport because of the inflow of flip-flops. You can't expect anybody to support the destruction of the industry in which they work. what are you on about mass immigration is good for the economy. If your a factory owner, or a Lincolnshire vegetable farmer or even a private landlord. So stop your winging, your personal experience of immigration counts for nothing. Think of the GDP man.
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Oct 14, 2017 7:30:02 GMT
Your problem is you think anyone who has an opposing view where money isn't everything must be labelled and dismissed as misguided. I think you'll find most people who voted out thought damn the financial consequences, our society has been turned upside down by political posturing and chasing a quick profit. Your political labelling of those who don't agree with you (not just yours ) only serves to underline bolster that view. You do write a lot I agree with, but I think your wish to follow a doctrine that has failed for decades is timid. Ok, i'm interested in social equality, a fairer society, I don't see anything wrong with that. The free market in the UK combined with 'austerity' since 2008 has enriched the top 1% of society at the expense of everybody else, I don't think that can be disputed. The Conservative's principle that if the rich get richer everybody else benefits just isn't happening. Yes a Labour government would seek to renationalise some industries in order to provide a better service and to stop large profits being sucked out by shareholders... often overseas hedge funds and Sovereign wealth funds. This is not a throwback to the 70's, many European countries have nationalised railways and other industries... France, Spain and Italy have had high speed rail networks for many years whilst our network could hardly be described as efficient or high speed under private ownership could it. Labour's proposal to lower the threshold for the 45p income tax band, which currently applies to people earning above £150,000, to £80,000 and introduce a new income tax rate of 50p for anyone earning more than £123,000 might be criticised by some but it isn't comparable to the 80% tax paid by high earners in the 70's either is it. I'm sure you've read coverage of this week's report by The IMF which suggests that increasing taxes for the rich will not harm economic growth... www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/inequality-imf-international-monetary-fund-high-tax-rich-jeremy-corbyn-a7995826.html Creation of wealth should be a collective endeavour between workers, entrepreneurs, investors and government. Each contributes and each must share fairly in the rewards. Labour would invest in our crumbling infrastructure... how could it be wrong to borrow money to do this with interest rates so low? The Banking sector urgently needs reform as they build yet another credit bubble, no lessons have been learned since 2008. I've been in correspondence with my MP suggesting that the Treasury Select Commitee should reopen their inquiry into the banking sector which was halted by this years General Election and hasn't been restarted by the Tories...I wonder why. Labour will transform how our financial system operates. Following the successful example of Germany and the Nordic countries, we will establish a National Investment Bank that will bring in private capital finance to deliver £250 billion of lending power. This new public institution will support a network of regional development banks that, unlike giant City of London firms, will be dedicated to supporting inclusive growth in their communities.. A bank run in the interests of our economy not for the benefit of it's shareholders. So Labour has forward looking policies for sustainable green energy, creating an economy that works for the many not the few, a fairer taxation system, better public services and widening ownership of our economy. The manifesto is fully costed, with all current spending paid for out of taxation or redirected revenue streams. Our public services must rest on the foundation of sound finances. Labour will, therefore, set the target of eliminating the government’s deficit on day-to-day spending within five years. I would argue that current Labour policy proposals don't represent a return to 'a doctrine that has failed for decades' but reflect the aspirations of a growing percentage of the electorate who are currently being let down by government, fresh thinking and policies intended to tackle today's issues. But you and your party still want to stay in the EU, ignoring the referendum, so that lot is irrelevant.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2017 7:49:44 GMT
Ok, i'm interested in social equality, a fairer society, I don't see anything wrong with that. The free market in the UK combined with 'austerity' since 2008 has enriched the top 1% of society at the expense of everybody else, I don't think that can be disputed. The Conservative's principle that if the rich get richer everybody else benefits just isn't happening. Yes a Labour government would seek to renationalise some industries in order to provide a better service and to stop large profits being sucked out by shareholders... often overseas hedge funds and Sovereign wealth funds. This is not a throwback to the 70's, many European countries have nationalised railways and other industries... France, Spain and Italy have had high speed rail networks for many years whilst our network could hardly be described as efficient or high speed under private ownership could it. Labour's proposal to lower the threshold for the 45p income tax band, which currently applies to people earning above £150,000, to £80,000 and introduce a new income tax rate of 50p for anyone earning more than £123,000 might be criticised by some but it isn't comparable to the 80% tax paid by high earners in the 70's either is it. I'm sure you've read coverage of this week's report by The IMF which suggests that increasing taxes for the rich will not harm economic growth... www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/inequality-imf-international-monetary-fund-high-tax-rich-jeremy-corbyn-a7995826.html Creation of wealth should be a collective endeavour between workers, entrepreneurs, investors and government. Each contributes and each must share fairly in the rewards. Labour would invest in our crumbling infrastructure... how could it be wrong to borrow money to do this with interest rates so low? The Banking sector urgently needs reform as they build yet another credit bubble, no lessons have been learned since 2008. I've been in correspondence with my MP suggesting that the Treasury Select Commitee should reopen their inquiry into the banking sector which was halted by this years General Election and hasn't been restarted by the Tories...I wonder why. Labour will transform how our financial system operates. Following the successful example of Germany and the Nordic countries, we will establish a National Investment Bank that will bring in private capital finance to deliver £250 billion of lending power. This new public institution will support a network of regional development banks that, unlike giant City of London firms, will be dedicated to supporting inclusive growth in their communities.. A bank run in the interests of our economy not for the benefit of it's shareholders. So Labour has forward looking policies for sustainable green energy, creating an economy that works for the many not the few, a fairer taxation system, better public services and widening ownership of our economy. The manifesto is fully costed, with all current spending paid for out of taxation or redirected revenue streams. Our public services must rest on the foundation of sound finances. Labour will, therefore, set the target of eliminating the government’s deficit on day-to-day spending within five years. I would argue that current Labour policy proposals don't represent a return to 'a doctrine that has failed for decades' but reflect the aspirations of a growing percentage of the electorate who are currently being let down by government, fresh thinking and policies intended to tackle today's issues. But you and your party still want to stay in the EU, ignoring the referendum, so that lot is irrelevant. Plenty of Tories wish to stay in Europe, aren't Labour and Conservative politicians equally divided on this?
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Oct 14, 2017 7:57:11 GMT
But you and your party still want to stay in the EU, ignoring the referendum, so that lot is irrelevant. Plenty of Tories wish to stay in Europe, aren't Labour and Conservative politicians equally divided on this? I think you're all lucky Farage stepped back. Labour/cons/Lib all a bunch of cunts to your man in the street and they'd have elected him simply for having the balls to say everything is fucked.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Oct 14, 2017 8:06:46 GMT
But you and your party still want to stay in the EU, ignoring the referendum, so that lot is irrelevant. Plenty of Tories wish to stay in Europe, aren't Labour and Conservative politicians equally divided on this? Well, let's face it, Labour politicians are just Conservative politicians in red ties.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Oct 14, 2017 16:07:24 GMT
Plenty of Tories wish to stay in Europe, aren't Labour and Conservative politicians equally divided on this? I think you're all lucky Farage stepped back. Labour/cons/Lib all a bunch of cunts to your man in the street and they'd have elected him simply for having the balls to say everything is fucked. Look, don't you dare show support for UKIP on here or you will be banned by the site owner. EDIT. Oops, sorry, I was thinking of somewhere else.
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Oct 16, 2017 13:32:20 GMT
Your problem is you think anyone who has an opposing view where money isn't everything must be labelled and dismissed as misguided. I think you'll find most people who voted out thought damn the financial consequences, our society has been turned upside down by political posturing and chasing a quick profit. Your political labelling of those who don't agree with you (not just yours ) only serves to underline bolster that view. You do write a lot I agree with, but I think your wish to follow a doctrine that has failed for decades is timid. Ok, i'm interested in social equality, a fairer society, I don't see anything wrong with that. The free market in the UK combined with 'austerity' since 2008 has enriched the top 1% of society at the expense of everybody else, I don't think that can be disputed. The Conservative's principle that if the rich get richer everybody else benefits just isn't happening. Yes a Labour government would seek to renationalise some industries in order to provide a better service and to stop large profits being sucked out by shareholders... often overseas hedge funds and Sovereign wealth funds. This is not a throwback to the 70's, many European countries have nationalised railways and other industries... France, Spain and Italy have had high speed rail networks for many years whilst our network could hardly be described as efficient or high speed under private ownership could it. Labour's proposal to lower the threshold for the 45p income tax band, which currently applies to people earning above £150,000, to £80,000 and introduce a new income tax rate of 50p for anyone earning more than £123,000 might be criticised by some but it isn't comparable to the 80% tax paid by high earners in the 70's either is it. I'm sure you've read coverage of this week's report by The IMF which suggests that increasing taxes for the rich will not harm economic growth... www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/inequality-imf-international-monetary-fund-high-tax-rich-jeremy-corbyn-a7995826.html Creation of wealth should be a collective endeavour between workers, entrepreneurs, investors and government. Each contributes and each must share fairly in the rewards. Labour would invest in our crumbling infrastructure... how could it be wrong to borrow money to do this with interest rates so low? The Banking sector urgently needs reform as they build yet another credit bubble, no lessons have been learned since 2008. I've been in correspondence with my MP suggesting that the Treasury Select Commitee should reopen their inquiry into the banking sector which was halted by this years General Election and hasn't been restarted by the Tories...I wonder why. Labour will transform how our financial system operates. Following the successful example of Germany and the Nordic countries, we will establish a National Investment Bank that will bring in private capital finance to deliver £250 billion of lending power. This new public institution will support a network of regional development banks that, unlike giant City of London firms, will be dedicated to supporting inclusive growth in their communities.. A bank run in the interests of our economy not for the benefit of it's shareholders. So Labour has forward looking policies for sustainable green energy, creating an economy that works for the many not the few, a fairer taxation system, better public services and widening ownership of our economy. The manifesto is fully costed, with all current spending paid for out of taxation or redirected revenue streams. Our public services must rest on the foundation of sound finances. Labour will, therefore, set the target of eliminating the government’s deficit on day-to-day spending within five years. I would argue that current Labour policy proposals don't represent a return to 'a doctrine that has failed for decades' but reflect the aspirations of a growing percentage of the electorate who are currently being let down by government, fresh thinking and policies intended to tackle today's issues. Interests rates have a habit of rising so those loans might come back and bankrupt the country Labours policy borrow borrow borrow then leave someone else to foot the huge bill!!
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Oct 16, 2017 15:19:40 GMT
...and how can you say on one hand that the banks are bad guys building a credit bubble and on the other that the government should borrow vast sums while interest rates are low? Have your cake and eat it?
|
|