British Politics
Been on holiday for a few weeks, surprised to find no general discussion of British politics so though I'd kick one off.
Tory leadership contest is quickly turning into farce. Trump has backed Boris, which should be reason enough for anyone with half a brain to exclude him.
Of the other candidates Rory Stewart looks the best of the outsiders. Surprised to see Cleverly and Javid not further up the betting, but not sure the Tory membership are ready for a brown PM.
https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/bri...
Regarding the LD leadership contest, Jo Swinson is miles ahead of any other candidate (and indeed any of the Tory lot). Should be a shoe in.
Finally, it's Groundhog Day in Labour - the more serious the anti-Semitism claims get, the more Corbyn's cronies write their own obituary by blaming it on outlandish conspiracy theories - this week, it's apparently the Jewish Embassy's fault...
Even if everthing was equal, some countries would do far better than others.
That's just maths. Chance can lead to big differences in outcomes that get locked in for long periods.
Thrown it away for the country.
I dont doubt he will do very well personally. And be able to convincingly claim it was much better than what came before and after.
You might find it convincing when it comes. I don't think many will.
The Lib Dem's manifesto is markedly to the left of Starmer's.
lol indeed
A large are of mountainous terrain usually means countries have to tool their economies appropriately as Switzerland did by specialising in small, high value items and banking services for Nazis and tax dodgers, none of which has anything to do with middle class immigrants being "better" than working class.
Being better than under boris/etc and not as bad as under those he is teeing up, is not an achievment. It's a tragic waste
Especially if as if as I expect, anything good will be funded by privatisation. Like PFI - it's fantastic during the incentive period. The private sector will for example come though Streeting's open door with huge wads of cash. They will pour money into KS's new towns. Etc etc
The main variable now is world events. e.g. Starmer could get lucky with world (read usa) growth or get crushed by a resurgence in world (read usa) inflation. Or ...
lol indeed
A large are of mountainous terrain usually means countries have to tool their economies appropriately as Switzerland did by specialising in small, high value items and banking services for Nazis and tax dodgers, none of which has anything to do with middle class immigrants being "better" than working class.
Which is why Bhutan is as rich as Switzerland.
Keep going
That means you are not getting the good ones from those countries though...
And if you want to "raise the pay of the lowest paid workers" then stop immigration of unskilled people and the market will adjust until the host population accepts to do those jobs.
But if you keep taking in people accepting to work at lower wages , wages will stay low. Unless ofc you want to decide wages in parliament which is a complete non starter for non marxists (and inevitably creates economic disasters)
Immigrants are being used to help out with the recruting crisis in the low paid social care sector. The employers are local authorities, who are starved of funding (or in some cases private companies who are contracted by local authorities). The market won't adjust, the jobs just go unfilled and the crisis continues. It suits the government to bring in immigrants to do these jobs rather than funding such a crucial sector.
You keep going. You have one thesis only (poor immigrants = bad) and ignore the myriad of other factors that differentiate diverse countries from each other.
Oh I wonder how Switzerland managed to become so wealthy when it was positioned in the middle of wealthy countries and supplied luxury goods and a tax-haven to them while staying out of conflicts.
Why oh why oh why?
It's moronic.
You don't need to explain the entirety of the outcome with better quality of people living somewhere, to claim immigrant from that place are a better economical fit for a civilized country.
So unless you want to claim that it never matter in the slightest who lives somewhere, for the economic outcome of that place...
You are told you have to stake 10 people otherwise you aren't going to be able to pay pensions.
I am telling you to pick people from countries whose regs systematically crush, you claim that's completely irrelevant and a country where poker is fully illegal is going to have good poker regs with the same distribution as every other countries
You are told you have to stake 10 people otherwise you aren't going to be able to pay pensions.
I am telling you to pick people from countries whose regs systematically crush, you claim that's completely irrelevant and a country where poker is fully illegal is going to have good poker regs with the same distribution as every other countries
lol that's a really stupid analogy. Come on, you can do better than this bs... I hope.
Reform turn the stomachs of enough current tory voters to drive them to other parties or abstention so they don’t have 36% as one party.
If they did unite under one party it would be so extreme that existing centrist One Nation tories might start a new party, leaving room for Labour to move back to the left once their prick of a “leader” has been deposed. There are only so many parties that can occupy the same ground under a FPTP system.
Maybe but I think almost all of the centrist one nation tories are already out of the tory figure voters.
some. Others to the one nation tory party 'changed labour'
I know a few diehard centrist tories and they're voting green. Maybe that applies to a few posters here as well.
Immigrants are being used to help out with the recruting crisis in the low paid social care sector. The employers are local authorities, who are starved of funding (or in some cases private companies who are contracted by local authorities). The market won't adjust, the jobs just go unfilled and the crisis continues. It suits the government to bring in immigrants to do these jobs rather than funding such a crucial sector.
Sadly it does look like that. If Brexit had worked as advertised, the lack of relatively cheap immigrant labour for the NHS and the care sector would have led to increased pay and hence increased recruitment and retention from the home UK workforce, but that does not seem to have happened. Maybe the likely incoming Labour administration will reach pay deals that start to turn this around, but probably they won't find the financial room for it.
Tories and Labour on course for lowest share of the vote since 1945
Poll reveals historically low support for the big two, with smaller parties up by five points
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/art...
Both a sign of the danger we're in and a ray of hope
Labour 40% vs 37% for tories + reform (objections acepted)
No you don't, but you do become highly aware that there are good and bad people everywhere in the world and that it doesn't really matter whether someone's from a western or non western country. I'm sorry you don't seem to have had these experiences that would have better informed your views about different groups of people.
It seems to matter to the subset of people from non-western countries who want to get from a place where they're surrounded by non-westerners and society is run to non-western values to a place where they are surrounded by westerners and society is run to western values.
That’s clearly not the point I was making.
It seems to matter to the subset of people from non-western countries who want to get from a place where they're surrounded by non-westerners and society is run to non-western values to a place where they are surrounded by westerners and society is run to western values.
A very small subset, unless you subscribe to the 80 million Turks are coming to the UK mentality, which possibly you do.
But people being attracted to countries with higher GDP per capita has nothing to do with the point I was making.
Many people would leave the UK for the US if the were able to. Does that mean the UK are “bad people” because they’re from a poorer country? That was what being discussed before you decided to hop in with something irrelevant.
A very small subset, unless you subscribe to the 80 million Turks are coming to the UK mentality, which possibly you do.
But people being attracted to countries with higher GDP per capita has nothing to do with the point I was making.
Many people would leave the UK for the US if the were able to. Does that mean the UK are “bad people” because they’re from a poorer country? That was what being discussed before you decided to hop in with something irrelevant.
If you had data showing that people from the UK in aggregate were a net drain of fiscal resources in the USA then yes you would be allowed to claim they are a bad match for that country (in other words, you would be able to claim the host country would be better off banning immigration from the UK).
And certainly you wouldn't be able to claim UK immigrants were paying american pensions
looool
Some would, for their own various reasons, but this isn't the 1970s when we were experiencing net emigration (but still having to put up with a lot of rant about immigration from the usual suspects). At present we are, fortunately, a country that people want to come to rather than, as then, a country that people want to leave.
