G STAR RAM Posted February 19, 2020 Author Share Posted February 19, 2020 18 minutes ago, WhiteHorseRam said: That's what this thread is all about! C'mon get with the program. That and the strange sexual tension between @SchtivePesley and @G STAR RAM , which holds it all together. Glad I'm not the only one who has noticed it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stive Pesley Posted February 19, 2020 Share Posted February 19, 2020 8 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said: Glad I'm not the only one who has noticed it... What are you wearing? ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaaLocks Posted February 19, 2020 Share Posted February 19, 2020 1 hour ago, Van der MoodHoover said: Beware unintended consequences. it really is not clear to me yet what type of country we are trying to be. Absolutely - one that is built on one knee jerk reaction after another, bereft of a PM who can even be bothered to care to govern and one guided by back seat drivers like Cummings with what seems like an implicitt admission of zero care for all but their own. As a vocal objector to Brexit (that word we can't apparently speak of any more in case people might actually realise it isn't quite over ready) I do have to admit that immigration policy was one place where we had a chance to stamp some competitive advantage on our economy. Being able to judge EU and non-EU migrants under the same system potentially gives us a great chance to level the playing field and make the opportunity truly equal to all. But they've FUBAR'ed it in the first pass by making it about elitism, earned salary and qualifications rather than incremental value that the person can bring. A hospital cleaner from Ghana brings value to this country in that he / she is prepared to do the job for a salary that others would not, even the most leftie of economists would have to admit that. But by taking that, and the other endless jobs in hospitality, retail, facilities management, healthcare and other industries, away without a clue how they will be replaced and they've just shown they have not got one single clue what they are on about. As for all these immigrants, I thought they were coming here living off benefits? Now Priti says actually that it's the 'economically inactive' that will need to step up and do the jobs that these immigrants will no longer be allowed to undertake. Listen to that for a minute, because the message is crystal clear, they're sending the immigrants back and telling us to mop the floors and pick the fruit. This really should be the point at which anyone who voted for Brexit starts to realise you've been well and truly conned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted February 19, 2020 Author Share Posted February 19, 2020 11 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said: What are you wearing? ? Turn you on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cstand Posted February 19, 2020 Share Posted February 19, 2020 58 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said: I seem to recall a lot (if not most) Brexit voters believing we'd be economically worse off in the short term Completely true that’s what most Brexit supporters expect when we leave the EU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1of4 Posted February 19, 2020 Share Posted February 19, 2020 1 hour ago, Ghost of Clough said: "Decimated" would infer massive cuts. As things stand, we're set for yet another increase in spend (even if in real terms that equates to a reduction). We currently have a National Debt of £1.8 trillion, but we had a modest £20 billion budget surplus in 2019, with similar projected for 2020. Even at that rate, we'd still be in debt at the start of the 22nd century. Reducing our debt is good, right? So, there isn't really any extra money for the Government to spend. Maybe redistribute instead? Pensions, health, education, welfare, etc (the things you want to increase spend on) costs roughly £610b. We can't really do anything to change the interest of £51.7b, and there's £50b of 'account adjustments' too. So after your 'ring fenced' areas and things we can't alter, we're left with about £150b. The remaining amount is spent on: Defence (£50.3b), 'General Goverment' (£16.9b), 'general economic, commercial and labour' (£13.3b), housing (£8.6b), R&D (£7.3b), agriculture (£5.8b), sports (£4.6b), broadcasting (£4.6b), 'other' (£23.7b). How much extra did you have in mind when suggesting we need to spend more on public services? Which government functions do you suggest we 'decimate' in order to not 'decimate' public services? So the country can't spend extra money on public services, unless there are cuts elsewhere in the budget. There is an alternative that would generate the extra money, that needs to be spent on public services. That's to ensure all the companies and individuals who are presently not paying their fair share into the country's coffers are made to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted February 19, 2020 Author Share Posted February 19, 2020 23 minutes ago, cstand said: Completely true that’s what most Brexit supporters expect when we leave the EU. Not sure it's right to try and speak on behalf of over 8m people. I would call Remainers out on it so think its only fair to do the same to Leave voters. Surely you can only speak on your own behalf and about people that you know. Of course I'm guessing you dont know over 8m people! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Ram for All Seasons Posted February 19, 2020 Share Posted February 19, 2020 25 minutes ago, cstand said: Completely true that’s what most Brexit supporters expect when we leave the EU. I presume you've already applied for your pay cut? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ossieram Posted February 19, 2020 Share Posted February 19, 2020 I find it strange that people are objecting to a policy that stops people travelling to ths country to be exploited by companies/farmers and others by paying poxey wages! 1 hour ago, BaaLocks said: A hospital cleaner from Ghana brings value to this country in that he / she is prepared to do the job for a salary that others would not, Well I suppose they will have to pay people a salary that means either this Ghanian will still be able to travel over, or somebody already living here will be tempted to leave their benefits behind and do the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted February 19, 2020 Author Share Posted February 19, 2020 27 minutes ago, ossieram said: I find it strange that people are objecting to a policy that stops people travelling to ths country to be exploited by companies/farmers and others by paying poxey wages! Well I suppose they will have to pay people a salary that means either this Ghanian will still be able to travel over, or somebody already living here will be tempted to leave their benefits behind and do the job. Win win isnt it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ossieram Posted February 19, 2020 Share Posted February 19, 2020 1 minute ago, G STAR RAM said: Win win isnt it? Apparently not! It's the work of the devil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uttoxram75 Posted February 19, 2020 Share Posted February 19, 2020 3 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said: "Decimated" would infer massive cuts. As things stand, we're set for yet another increase in spend (even if in real terms that equates to a reduction). We currently have a National Debt of £1.8 trillion, but we had a modest £20 billion budget surplus in 2019, with similar projected for 2020. Even at that rate, we'd still be in debt at the start of the 22nd century. Reducing our debt is good, right? So, there isn't really any extra money for the Government to spend. Maybe redistribute instead? Pensions, health, education, welfare, etc (the things you want to increase spend on) costs roughly £610b. We can't really do anything to change the interest of £51.7b, and there's £50b of 'account adjustments' too. So after your 'ring fenced' areas and things we can't alter, we're left with about £150b. The remaining amount is spent on: Defence (£50.3b), 'General Goverment' (£16.9b), 'general economic, commercial and labour' (£13.3b), housing (£8.6b), R&D (£7.3b), agriculture (£5.8b), sports (£4.6b), broadcasting (£4.6b), 'other' (£23.7b). How much extra did you have in mind when suggesting we need to spend more on public services? Which government functions do you suggest we 'decimate' in order to not 'decimate' public services? If you take the internal market system out of the NHS it would be cheaper to provide better services. Another example would be the Rail network, it would be cheaper in the long run to have a publicly owned and run joined up transport system than fragmented services all trying to make a profit .Better, cheaper, transport in itself creates growth and more money into the coffers. Too much money made out of our services is lost to tax havens. Ring fencing vital public services would actually be beneficial to the country's finances as well as better for the end users. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stive Pesley Posted February 19, 2020 Share Posted February 19, 2020 56 minutes ago, ossieram said: I find it strange that people are objecting to a policy that stops people travelling to ths country to be exploited by companies/farmers and others by paying poxey wages! Well I suppose they will have to pay people a salary that means either this Ghanian will still be able to travel over, or somebody already living here will be tempted to leave their benefits behind and do the job. It's certainly an interesting play by the govt. Essentially - the impoverished British underclass can do the crappy jobs and we'll import foreigners to do all the highly-skilled well-paid jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexxxxx Posted February 19, 2020 Share Posted February 19, 2020 I actually thought boris might have actually implemented a proper points based system rather than this silly lip service to his voters. There will be so many exceptions... Canadian system doesn't even require you to have a job if you meet enough of the criteria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted February 19, 2020 Author Share Posted February 19, 2020 34 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said: It's certainly an interesting play by the govt. Essentially - the impoverished British underclass can do the crappy jobs and we'll import foreigners to do all the highly-skilled well-paid jobs. Or; Essentially - employers will stop using immigrants to do the jobs, opening up more jobs for English people, lowering unemployment and getting more people of unemployment benefits, either that or the employers will be forced to pay a higher wage to immigrants. Depends which way you want to spin it I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cstand Posted February 19, 2020 Share Posted February 19, 2020 2 hours ago, A Ram for All Seasons said: I presume you've already applied for your pay cut? Well if I took a pay cut I would drop out of the 40% tax bracket but I presume you would not like me paying less tax? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaaLocks Posted February 19, 2020 Share Posted February 19, 2020 1 hour ago, ossieram said: I find it strange that people are objecting to a policy that stops people travelling to ths country to be exploited by companies/farmers and others by paying poxey wages! Well I suppose they will have to pay people a salary that means either this Ghanian will still be able to travel over, or somebody already living here will be tempted to leave their benefits behind and do the job. Bit of a circular argument this one but I get your point and I do agree that this is realism over idealism (my ideal place is that everyone earns a fair and honest wage but I also recognize I live in a world where that would be very, very difficult to achieve). OPTION ONE: We should instead pay those poxey wages to good honest Brits, who will then live in the same way, and work in the same way, as those immigrants that they are replacing. Oh, the immigrants that were brought here in the first place because nobody was willing to the work for that money. Not quite sure how many Brits would look at that as a good thing. OPTION TWO: We pay the people in those jobs living wage or above, accept the impact that will have on prices, coz one thing you can be sure of is that this government won't cut the bosses bonus to fund it. Then those industries either become unsustainable or uncompetitive. But we are in agreement that the intended outcome is not to exploit them in the first place, then we go a bit towards the Norway model that many espouse as ideal. The one where a beer costs over £7 a pint and a pair of jeans is more than £70. Good luck selling that one to the masses.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cstand Posted February 19, 2020 Share Posted February 19, 2020 1 hour ago, SchtivePesley said: It's certainly an interesting play by the govt. Essentially - the impoverished British underclass can do the crappy jobs and we'll import foreigners to do all the highly-skilled well-paid jobs. What a racist PM giving the foreigners the best jobs....... I don’t believe it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GboroRam Posted February 19, 2020 Share Posted February 19, 2020 10 hours ago, SchtivePesley said: Do you genuinely believe that a bridge between Scotland and Ireland is a realistic possibility? Despite the fact that it would serve almost no purpose and the fact that civil engineers are unanimous that it would be a physical impossibility due to the depth of the water? That's before we get on to the fact that the depth of the trench is why we disposed of so many explosives and munitions into it over the past 80 years... It's just posturing, look at me, I have big ideas nonsense. Will never happen Don't forget when you consider the odds of Boris building a bridge between Scotland and Northern Ireland, he couldn't build a bridge from London to London. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaaLocks Posted February 19, 2020 Share Posted February 19, 2020 3 hours ago, ossieram said: I find it strange that people are objecting to a policy that stops people travelling to ths country to be exploited by companies/farmers and others by paying poxey wages! Well I suppose they will have to pay people a salary that means either this Ghanian will still be able to travel over, or somebody already living here will be tempted to leave their benefits behind and do the job. And just to confirm on that point - the proposal released today has anyone earning less than £25.6k as unskilled. NHS Starting Salaries: Nurse £24.2k Paramedic 24.2k Midwife £24.2k Radiographer £24.2k Care assistant £17.6k Physiotherapist £24.2k Occupational therapist £24.2k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.