BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
Britian is good a muddling through a mess. Fudging making is a british speciality. The thing is the fudge keeps no one happy. Brexit will happen but no one will like the results whatever they may be.
On a side note while the price of imported goods has shot up making it difficult to sell many things now. The number of sales abroad has shot up. These are for profitable items though. Overall though the impact looks negative. I will muddle through i have more of a plan though than the government does.http://www.thecycleclinic.co.uk -wheel building and other stuff.0 -
The winners in this, and there will be some, will be the wealthy who can shift investments, take advantage of markets and pay for private healthcare. Those with no money will be hit hard.
A party that works for everyone?0 -
Joelsim wrote:Ballysmate wrote:Joelsim wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Pinno wrote:I'm totally lost.
In voters are the true bigots as they prefer EU migrants to non EU migrants. Out voters oppose all migrants so are not bigoted.
A good précis.
Or maybe that should be summary in this day and age.
Basically it's the Tory boys on here trying to justify their party's disgusting and damaging behaviour.
If you mean me, not at all.
You referred earlier to The Conservative UKIP party. Don't forget that millions of Labour voters voted OUT. As has been stated before TM was a remainer and has been given the task of trying to honour the referendum result. How is that disgusting?
62% of Labour voters were for remain, 37% of Tories for remain.
The leavers were the rich and the incredibly poor on the whole. And the ignorant.
How do you know the 1/3 of Labour supporters were very poor and the 2/3 of Tory supporters were rich.
If your assertion is true, there are an awful lot of rich people in the UK aren't there?
I made an assumption that you considered Tories rich and Labour poor. Apologise if this not the case.0 -
Ballysmate wrote:Joelsim wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Pinno wrote:I'm totally lost.
In voters are the true bigots as they prefer EU migrants to non EU migrants. Out voters oppose all migrants so are not bigoted.
A good précis.
Or maybe that should be summary in this day and age.
Basically it's the Tory boys on here trying to justify their party's disgusting and damaging behaviour.
If you mean me, not at all.
You referred earlier to The Conservative UKIP party. Don't forget that millions of Labour voters voted OUT. As has been stated before TM was a remainer and has been given the task of trying to honour the referendum result. How is that disgusting?
was she? really? not according to one of Camerons advisors, she wasnt.
but my heart warmed when i heard the tories are going to have an industrial policy and revive the old and trusted ways of british manufacturing....... starting with using french steel to build the hulls of the replacement Trident subs.
the immigration rhetoric is scary, my last visits to a UK general hospital showed the place is full of european and other foreign workers, how many of them will stick around as the UK swings to the right fill the ground vacated by ukip?
1500 new doctors per year? well, if these people take up these new places, then that surely must mean 1500 very clever individuals that dont go onto study other worthwhile and hi end subjects at Uni, how will this short fall be filled?0 -
the immigration rhetoric is scary, my last visits to a UK general hospital showed the place is full of european and other foreign workers, how many of them will stick around as the UK swings to the right fill the ground vacated by ukip?
Yesterday some Tory nutter (Home Sec?) was promising to cut the number of non-EU students... which prompted the usual complaints about destroying a great British industry. As we will need to keep health workers, builders, highly skilled and very low paid it struck me that the Brexiteers should draw up a list of the people they want to exclude. Rather than by nationality this would be by job/industry.0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:the immigration rhetoric is scary, my last visits to a UK general hospital showed the place is full of european and other foreign workers, how many of them will stick around as the UK swings to the right fill the ground vacated by ukip?
Yesterday some Tory nutter (Home Sec?) was promising to cut the number of non-EU students... which prompted the usual complaints about destroying a great British industry. As we will need to keep health workers, builders, highly skilled and very low paid it struck me that the Brexiteers should draw up a list of the people they want to exclude. Rather than by nationality this would be by job/industry.
We could get all foreigners to wear an identifier on their sleeve, a star perhaps.0 -
EU immigrants make up about 5% of English NHS staff and about 5% of the English population, according to the best available data. Across the UK, EU immigrants make up 10% of registered doctors and 4% of registered nurses.
https://fullfact.org/immigration/immigr ... nhs-staff/
The number of EU staff seems proportionate to the EU population. One in twenty staff are from EU.
It appears that there was no flight from non EU staff when the rules were changed to discriminate against them and the shortfall in staff recruitment was filled by EU citizens.
I would think it quite possible that recruitment from outside the EU would increase once they are again able to compete for entry on level terms.0 -
The interesting thing about NHS workers is that many of the non-EU workers who had a vote voted out. I have no source other a random sample from one hospital doctor, but apparently a lot are disgruntled about the way EU citizens don't need to pass various tests which non-EU citizens are required to, and as a result, there are fewer jobs for their compatriots. Sounded like lowest common denominator regulation to me, but I have no idea whether that broadly increased the UK's standards or not.0
-
Bottom line is May is claiming immigrants are 'taking jobs' from UK citizens; all evidence I have ever read on this (and there is a lot, not just in the UK, but from every developed country) suggests that this very rarely happens indeed.
From my own personal experience in hiring, locals are always preferable for the simple reason that geographical proximity to work is a fundamental desire for employers; the staff have to physically be there, so being physically far away won't work. Most people don't like moving house regularly, especially when they have families.
It's just easier. To go through the faff of relocation from a different country (which almost always involved paying more as a result - danger money - as it's known) is a serious ball-ache for companies, and is done when they can't get the people they need.
Also, the rules any country puts in place for 'locals first' aren't even that effective.
Switzerland has them; all it meant is some firms charge for providing 'evidence' as to why the local market did not suffice.0 -
I was talking to a company director last week who had relocated a factory to I think Maldon in Essex. The company went through over 600 staff in 2 years, filling 200 vacancies until the workforce settled down with a high proportion of foreign workers. His experience, and I admit it is a sample of 1, was that a lot of UK unemployed attended because they were forced to by the job centres and deliberately made themselves unsuitable.
I would hope that such people are in for a rude awakening post Brexit.0 -
Not so. It is looking more and more like the leftie boys trying to cover up for the uncomfortable realisation that discriminating against non-EU citizens compared to EU citizens when it comes to immigration is, well, discriminatory.Joelsim wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Pinno wrote:I'm totally lost.
In voters are the true bigots as they prefer EU migrants to non EU migrants. Out voters oppose all migrants so are not bigoted.
A good précis.
Or maybe that should be summary in this day and age.
Basically it's the Tory boys on here trying to justify their party's disgusting and damaging behaviour."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
May:
While monetary policy with super low rates and quantitative easing have provided emergency medicine, we have to acknowledge some of the bad side effects. People with assets have got richer, while people without have not…
A change has got to come, and we are going to deliver it because that’s what a Conservative government can do.
Hard to fault that (...and I'm really not a fan). Only tenuously linked to Brexit though.0 -
TheBigBean wrote:May:
While monetary policy with super low rates and quantitative easing have provided emergency medicine, we have to acknowledge some of the bad side effects. People with assets have got richer, while people without have not…
A change has got to come, and we are going to deliver it because that’s what a Conservative government can do.
Hard to fault that (...and I'm really not a fan). Only tenuously linked to Brexit though.
I presume that a) that isn't a jibe that the BoE hired in a foreigner when a Brit could do the job and b) she understands monetary policy is infinitely more effective when it is considered to be independent from the gov't; however correct or not she is.0 -
Interesting article on the BBC about changing real incomes
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-375424940 -
Rick Chasey wrote:TheBigBean wrote:May:
While monetary policy with super low rates and quantitative easing have provided emergency medicine, we have to acknowledge some of the bad side effects. People with assets have got richer, while people without have not…
A change has got to come, and we are going to deliver it because that’s what a Conservative government can do.
Hard to fault that (...and I'm really not a fan). Only tenuously linked to Brexit though.
I presume that a) that isn't a jibe that the BoE hired in a foreigner when a Brit could do the job and b) she understands monetary policy is infinitely more effective when it is considered to be independent from the gov't; however correct or not she is.
See graph below of inflation in the UK. This is the BoE's target and remit, but it is has decided that other factors should come into play. Now it may be right that this is better for the country, but that has never been tested democratically, and instead it has assumed this responsibility. People, including the government, have a right to criticise this and the approach taken.
0 -
Sure. With rates at 0.25% and QE of £450bn, they don't have much else to play with.
I don't see what her comments in public add. Every month the BoE misses its target it sends a letter explaining why.
If there are bigger issues afoot, she can discuss them in private. I don't see what value undermining the BoE and its independence has.0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
Not so. It is looking more and more like the leftie boys trying to cover up for the uncomfortable realisation that discriminating against non-EU citizens compared to EU citizens when it comes to immigration is, well, discriminatory.Joelsim wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Pinno wrote:I'm totally lost.
In voters are the true bigots as they prefer EU migrants to non EU migrants. Out voters oppose all migrants so are not bigoted.
A good précis.
Or maybe that should be summary in this day and age.
Basically it's the Tory boys on here trying to justify their party's disgusting and damaging behaviour.
So, you think that if there was a poll amongst Leavers that the top entry for 'send them home' wouldn't be Asian/Muslim then?
The vote was about immigration, not EU vs Non-EU immigration.
All the National Socialists have done this week at their conference is stoke up and legitimise racial intolerance as dissuade foreigners from feeling welcome here.
It's disgusting.0 -
Many people, like those that don't own houses, are a bit miffed with the BoE and she is playing to that crowd. That's what politicians do. The BoE should not be immune to criticism.0
-
Rick Chasey wrote:Sure. With rates at 0.25% and QE of £450bn, they don't have much else to play with.
I don't see what her comments in public add. Every month the BoE misses its target it sends a letter explaining why.
If there are bigger issues afoot, she can discuss them in private. I don't see what value undermining the BoE and its independence has.
Two reasons.
1) to support the fallacy that they are working for everyone and therefore appeal to the centre ground that Labour are ignoring.
2) to make it easier to discredit what the BoE report as the economy goes through the floor.0 -
Sure, but the criticism is partisan and misses out half the story.
If the economy is managed through two main levers - monetary policy and fiscal policy - you can't really discuss one without the other.
The reason why it makes sense to have an independent monetary policy is because politicians generally can't be trusted to do what's best long term.
To do what May has done; which is give the BoE a broadside without discussing the wider context (i.e. fiscal policy), is irresponsible; it serves to politicise their decisions, which are supposed to be taken as objectively as possible.
Furthermore, the BoE is in little position to do the same back; so it's a one way argument. The BoE can say 'the economy could do with some more fiscal stimulus' but that's as far as it's allowed to go.
It's not really fair criticism on a number of levels.0 -
TheBigBean wrote:May:
While monetary policy with super low rates and quantitative easing have provided emergency medicine, we have to acknowledge some of the bad side effects. People with assets have got richer, while people without have not…
A change has got to come, and we are going to deliver it because that’s what a Conservative government can do.
Hard to fault that (...and I'm really not a fan). Only tenuously linked to Brexit though.
well, she certainly has, TM s net wealth is some £2m and all credit to her
0 -
TheBigBean wrote:Many people, like those that don't own houses, are a bit miffed with the BoE and she is playing to that crowd. That's what politicians do. The BoE should not be immune to criticism.
Always look out for the grey vote - typically mortgage paid off and Monty in the bank.0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:TheBigBean wrote:Many people, like those that don't own houses, are a bit miffed with the BoE and she is playing to that crowd. That's what politicians do. The BoE should not be immune to criticism.
Always look out for the grey vote - typically mortgage paid off and Monty in the bank.
Yes, but some of them are realising that (a) having children still living at home or (b) having to fund the children's house purchasing is taking some of the shine off living in a very valuable property.
Then there is the question of whom they might vote for in the next election, and the answer is almost certainly not Corbyn, so May can tactically ignore the right and reclaim a lot of the middle. She hasn't become PM by not knowing when she can screw someone over.0 -
TheBigBean wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:TheBigBean wrote:Many people, like those that don't own houses, are a bit miffed with the BoE and she is playing to that crowd. That's what politicians do. The BoE should not be immune to criticism.
Always look out for the grey vote - typically mortgage paid off and Monty in the bank.
Yes, but some of them are realising that (a) having children still living at home or (b) having to fund the children's house purchasing is taking some of the shine off living in a very valuable property.
Then there is the question of whom they might vote for in the next election, and the answer is almost certainly not Corbyn, so May can tactically ignore the right and reclaim a lot of the middle. She hasn't become PM by not knowing when she can screw someone over.
She needs to get things through the Commons too - and the right also know that they can do almost anything and people still won't vote for Corbyn. It's like Major all over again only this time they think they have the democratic vote on their side.0 -
Taken from Twitter. Spot on.
We now have an ultra-nationalist party (May), a socialist party (Corbyn), and 70% of people in the middle wondering what the hell's going on.
The cost of Labour abandoning even looking at the centre ground has never been more real than today.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Sure, but the criticism is partisan and misses out half the story.
If the economy is managed through two main levers - monetary policy and fiscal policy - you can't really discuss one without the other.
The reason why it makes sense to have an independent monetary policy is because politicians generally can't be trusted to do what's best long term.
To do what May has done; which is give the BoE a broadside without discussing the wider context (i.e. fiscal policy), is irresponsible; it serves to politicise their decisions, which are supposed to be taken as objectively as possible.
Furthermore, the BoE is in little position to do the same back; so it's a one way argument. The BoE can say 'the economy could do with some more fiscal stimulus' but that's as far as it's allowed to go.
It's not really fair criticism on a number of levels.
But in this case the argument is about monetary policy and whether the asset bubble chosen by the BoE is better or worse than the deflationary recession that may have been the alternative.
As I said before, it may be that the BoE made the right choice, but it needs to be accountable for that choice. Now, you can argue that should be done behind closed doors, but I'm also interested in the answer and really don't mind the democratically elected government asking that question and holding it to account. Now if the response is that the government should have spent more then fine, but at least there is some debate. And yes, the BoE should be free to respond, and it has made comments in the past, so i suspect it will.
So maybe the Conservative party conference is not the place for the criticism, but I'm glad that someone has asked the question.0 -
Strange days indeed.
A Tory PM at Tory party conference championing workers rights, advocating state intervention, threatening big business? Woss gahn on? It's almost like they've spotted that the lumpen proletariat took the 'F U' option in the Referendum, reckon Labour are dead in the water, and, still scared of the 'Kipper nutters, are playing to some prejudices. Good to see then prioritising party politics over the economic stability of the country.
And as for May's mini-me Home Sec Rudd with her 'businesses hire too many foreigners' schtick.... Yeah, right on sis. Get them to list the names, name and shame; make them furriners carry ID, then we could have goons in long leather coats checking "papieren bitte" at railway stations, better still get them to wear a big F on their backs... Glorious future, tomorrow belongs to me, what a fine time to be British.0 -
orraloon wrote:Strange days indeed.
A Tory PM at Tory party conference championing workers rights, advocating state intervention, threatening big business? Woss gahn on? It's almost like they've spotted that the lumpen proletariat took the 'F U' option in the Referendum, reckon Labour are dead in the water, and, still scared of the 'Kipper nutters, are playing to some prejudices. Good to see then prioritising party politics over the economic stability of the country.
And as for May's mini-me Home Sec Rudd with her 'businesses hire too many foreigners' schtick.... Yeah, right on sis. Get them to list the names, name and shame; make them furriners carry ID, then we could have goons in long leather coats checking "papieren bitte" at railway stations, better still get them to wear a big F on their backs... Glorious future, tomorrow belongs to me, what a fine time to be British.
yep lets make all those bl00dy foreigners in OUR nhs, fcuk off back to euro leftie land, we dont need em, we ll train our own Doctors, Nurses... porters, cooks, cleaners, physio's, radiographers Paramedics, receptionists, pharmacists.......
its certainly a plan, one with a few major flaws but i doubt any at the Tory conf will need the NHS, so who cares?0 -
Lookyhere wrote:orraloon wrote:Strange days indeed.
A Tory PM at Tory party conference championing workers rights, advocating state intervention, threatening big business? Woss gahn on? It's almost like they've spotted that the lumpen proletariat took the 'F U' option in the Referendum, reckon Labour are dead in the water, and, still scared of the 'Kipper nutters, are playing to some prejudices. Good to see then prioritising party politics over the economic stability of the country.
And as for May's mini-me Home Sec Rudd with her 'businesses hire too many foreigners' schtick.... Yeah, right on sis. Get them to list the names, name and shame; make them furriners carry ID, then we could have goons in long leather coats checking "papieren bitte" at railway stations, better still get them to wear a big F on their backs... Glorious future, tomorrow belongs to me, what a fine time to be British.
yep lets make all those bl00dy foreigners in OUR nhs, fcuk off back to euro leftie land, we dont need em, we ll train our own Doctors, Nurses... porters, cooks, cleaners, physio's, radiographers Paramedics, receptionists, pharmacists.......
its certainly a plan, one with a few major flaws but i doubt any at the Tory conf will need the NHS, so who cares?
What's so depressing is that both of the above posts are quite right.0 -
TheBigBean wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Sure, but the criticism is partisan and misses out half the story.
If the economy is managed through two main levers - monetary policy and fiscal policy - you can't really discuss one without the other.
The reason why it makes sense to have an independent monetary policy is because politicians generally can't be trusted to do what's best long term.
To do what May has done; which is give the BoE a broadside without discussing the wider context (i.e. fiscal policy), is irresponsible; it serves to politicise their decisions, which are supposed to be taken as objectively as possible.
Furthermore, the BoE is in little position to do the same back; so it's a one way argument. The BoE can say 'the economy could do with some more fiscal stimulus' but that's as far as it's allowed to go.
It's not really fair criticism on a number of levels.
But in this case the argument is about monetary policy and whether the asset bubble chosen by the BoE is better or worse than the deflationary recession that may have been the alternative.
As I said before, it may be that the BoE made the right choice, but it needs to be accountable for that choice. Now, you can argue that should be done behind closed doors, but I'm also interested in the answer and really don't mind the democratically elected government asking that question and holding it to account. Now if the response is that the government should have spent more then fine, but at least there is some debate. And yes, the BoE should be free to respond, and it has made comments in the past, so i suspect it will.
So maybe the Conservative party conference is not the place for the criticism, but I'm glad that someone has asked the question.
I would far rather have an independent BofE than politicians setting monetary policy.
However could somebody explain QE to me... please don't say it is printing money as they are not (or am I wrong). hopefully the explanation will reveal why they are doing it as I really don't understand.0
