Non aviation content. Play nice – No religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.

Moderator: Flyin'Dutch'

  • 1
  • 377
  • 378
  • 379
  • 380
  • 381
  • 501
User avatar
By PaulB
#1692744
OCB wrote:At a sociological level, I find it fascinating that politicians still continue to think they can influence (short term) voter opinion via paid media....


What about paid social media?
By johnm
#1692747
eltonioni wrote:
johnm wrote: By the mid 80s those schemes had almost entirely disappeared though and we’ve been paying the price for that and the lazy “markets fix anything” philosophy ever since.

I've not heard that phrase before, what is its provenance?


Its provenance is probably me :D

It's just a summary of successive govt policy since the Thatcher era where they have operated on the basis that if you create a market then the processes of buying and selling will drive efficiency and, as you know, it has been applied to health, education, areas of local government and others. It assumes that markets are inherently efficient which is simple minded nonsense. They can work very well in a context where competition drives innovation and value otherwise they're just another bureaucratic process and in a context where co-operation and collaboration is better than competition they are counter-productive.
Last edited by johnm on Fri May 10, 2019 5:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
By JoeC
#1692756
eltonioni wrote: if they have animosity to the EU


The people of Shirebrook and Bolsover were let down many years before any immigrants arrived. The pit in Bolsover closed when the EU (as it is now) was only just born, approx 1993. (I had the last ever egg and chips in the canteen actually). Lack of any planning and a complete failure by the governments of both persuasions to genuinely support areas like this have made it easy for those with an agenda to convince locals that problems with prosperity are EU made when they are sadly of our own making.
johnm, PaulB liked this
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1692779
OCB wrote:Neither the science, nor the much dodgier pseudo-evidence based studies conclude that the Bravo Sierra that the likes of media muppets such as Sky spout actually has an impact on how people vote.

At a sociological level, I find it fascinating that politicians still continue to think they can influence (short term) voter opinion via paid media - but I honestly tuck that away as “historical anachronism”. It’s part of the election ritual, it keeps lots of people in employment - even though it’s been proven to be ineffective.


So on what do these people base their opinions then?

The vast majority will have had no direct negative impact on their lives from the EU or EU immigrants, rather more likely the contrary.
User avatar
By PaulB
#1692875
This may be sailing too far from Brexit and too close to politics, but it is funny!

User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1693551
Just in the news now - next attempt to get the WA through parliament, week commencing 3/6.
User avatar
By PaulB
#1693560
I understand that it'll be the whole withdrawal bill rather than just a single vote on the agreement.

That'll be enough to tangle MPs up for days if not weeks of recriminations.
By johnm
#1693563
I’m trying understand what’s intended and struggling a bit. AIUI some possible changes to the political declaration are being discussed with Brussels and Parliament will be asked to sign off the withdrawal agreement unchanged on the assumption that the revised political declaration will then be agreed as the basis of the future relationship.

However I am far from confident that I have got that right.
User avatar
By kanga
#1693587
AIUI, this is actually the 2nd Reading of the actual enabling Bill, ie the only thing on track to get to the Statute Book, revoking the European Communities Act; all previous votes (eg rejecting WA and No Deal) merely direct the Government not to do certain things. Its First Reading as a short Bill was passed a while ago. Reportedly the Bill is now long, setting out in detail what and where laws and regulations and powers which are legacy from the EEC-EU eras will still apply and for how long or until what further domestic legislation. After Second Reading must come Committee Stage, where any part of the Bill may be changed either in Select Committee or in 'Committee of the whole House' ie in the Chamber. Then it must pass a Third Reading. Then it must pass all these stages in the Lords unamended .. Potentially bumpy road ahead. :roll:
johnm liked this
By felixflyer
#1693792
The vast majority will have had no direct negative impact on their lives from the EU or EU immigrants, rather more likely the contrary.


I don't agree. A huge number have seen a negative impact. Whether that be wages held low, lack of affordable housing, waiting lists or not being seen in regards to the NHS, congestion on the roads etc. etc.

I know exactly what the replies will be. Immigration has always been good and talk about Huguenots or other nonsense. The levels of immigration we have seen in the last decade far outweigh historic levels, continue to grow and are just not sustainable. The point is not about where those people come from, what god they pray to or the colour of their skin. It is purely about numbers. We would be facing the same problem had the birth rate of the UK population increased to level of population growth we are seeing today.

The argument that immigration has been good to our economy is also fake news and only tells half the story.

This problem we have of not being allowed to have a proper debate on population increase without being labelled racist is part of the problem and until we can grow up and do so it's stopping us dealing with the underlying issues and concerns. It's no surprise to me that it's the poor areas that have seen the largest influx of immigrants and are those who largely voted leave. Being told their lives have actually improved because the local shop is now a Polski Sklep, half the kids in the school struggle to speak English, they cannot afford to get on the property ladder and can't get an appointment with a doctor is not likely to make them feel any better.

Calling them racist or stupid for using their right to vote to change their situation is not going to win them over either.
Sooty25 liked this
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1693805
Be that as it may, those problems are not generated by the EU immigrants but the result of the UK not to ensure that its own workforce is adequate and so Immigration would not be required, nor the EU for facilitating immigration.

This is a UK homegrown problem that will not be resolved by pulling up the drawbridge.

The same problems would arise if EU immigrants were Commonwealth immigrants, or?
johnm liked this
By felixflyer
#1693811
but the result of the UK not to ensure that its own workforce is adequate


But how do you do that without having some limitation of the number of immigrants allowed to apply? How do you pay the UK workforce a salary inline with the higher cost of living in the UK without attracting people from countries with a much lower cost of living to those high salaries? How do you stop the pay rates being kept low when they is a seemingly endless supply of people willing to work for less and lower than someone with a family to support in the UK can afford to live on? How can you expect people to pay thousands for a qualification when someone that paid a fraction of that can come along and do the job for less?

People see leaving the EU as the first hurdle in creating our own tailored controlled immigration policy. We have been told to often that politicians hands are tied by EU regulation and this is the result.
Sooty25 liked this
By johnm
#1693818
This ongoing saga of nonsense about FoM just gets more and more annoying. For more than a decade net immigration to this country has been around 50/50 EU and other. So we could have eliminated half of it at a stroke.

FoM has conditions, few of which the UK has troubled to enforce, and the span of EU migrants' skills goes from veg and fruit pickers to university professors.

There is no evidence that the departure of low skilled EU workers results in those jobs being filled by local labour, basically they aren't filled and we have crops rotting in the ground as a consequence. Where have the workers gone, you may wonder and the answer is to Germany and Romania where wages are higher, partly as a result of the collapse of the pound against the Euro when the referendum took place. Interestingly we are seeing the same kind of problem in California as Trump plays silly whatsits too.

The fact that some people choose to see immigrants as a scapegoat for their troubles doesn't make them right.
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1693823
There is no reason why the UK cannot educate enough people to become doctors, nurses, design engineers, chefs, or indeed generate its own number of people.

People see leaving the EU as the first hurdle in creating our own tailored controlled immigration policy. We have been told to often that politicians hands are tied by EU regulation and this is the result.


Immigration is the result of the sum difference between supply and demand.

There is nothing stopping fruit farmers to pay more to their staff (if that was the thing that would motivate Brits to do those jobs) but that the people dont want to pay the prices that the public want to pay (although the end price is much more dependent on others in the supply chain needing to make big profits than what the farmers and their team receive)

But all of that requires a different approach - starting with UK politicians being honest about what is what.

And the UK has had 100% Control over non-EU Immigration and those controls are not working too well either; from not letting in enough Folks which are apparently needed, to turfing out people who have been here a very long time, made a worthwhile contribution, and whose paperwork has been shredded by the Home Office.
johnm liked this
By felixflyer
#1693848
FoM has conditions, few of which the UK has troubled to enforce, and the span of EU migrants' skills goes from veg and fruit pickers to university professors.

There is no evidence that the departure of low skilled EU workers results in those jobs being filled by local labour, basically they aren't filled and we have crops rotting in the ground as a consequence.


You mention the wide span of skills yet your second paragraph is only applicable to the fruit pickers and other low paid unskilled labour. If there is a shortage of any particular workforce then that is where the controlled immigration comes in. Likewise If all skills are in demand and we want to revert to what we have now then we simply allow everyone to come work here.

Controlled immigration provides for whatever the country needs while protecting our own workforce and ensuring we have enough opportunities for our own people.if we need to train our own doctors, engineers etc. then we use the same controls to limit those. A simple points based system is being done throughout the world. Those against always try to argue that controlled immigration equals no immigration but that's just not the case and not what most people want.



Immigration is the result of the sum difference between supply and demand.

There is nothing stopping fruit farmers to pay more to their staff (if that was the thing that would motivate Brits to do those jobs) but that the people don't want to pay



I agree but you also need some kind of protection in place to stop others taking those higher salaries. If you raise the prices in the shops, people pay it and then you pass that on to the pickers you need a way to stop fruit pickers from other parts of the world who can not pay the same rates from coming here.

Then there is the argument about tempting those doctors and engineers away from places they are needed with the higher UK salaries which is a whole other kettle of fish that those who support mass migration don't seem to want to address.
  • 1
  • 377
  • 378
  • 379
  • 380
  • 381
  • 501