The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[Doobs]

re sports direct blog "the majority of jobs went to east European workers".   Surely they wouldn't have had a vote?  So what is he saying - people voted Brexit because Eastern Europeans were stealing their shitty jobs?  

Wouldnt the attitude be if eastern europeans didnt accept this shit (because they are treated similar worse in poland for a fraction of the pay) by not being here, sport direct would have to offer proper conditions or not have staff. The fact employers act this way is they think they can replace their staff at will, its an employers market. Reduce the labour pool and people are forced to compete for staff with terms and conditions as they arent as readily replaceable. Ofcourse alot of these beliefs are drven by people who turn up to the jobcentre key in 20 quid an hour labouring jobs.

but he says

Why should gloomy forecasts of a Brexit future worry you when you don’t even know if you’ll get paid next week?

If Sports Directs Labour practices are widespread, then he might have a point, but the people who he uses as an example in the main didn't vote.

The people who jobs they are 'stealing' though did....

You can speculate about that, but it's not what he says in the article.

No speculation required, here is the result in that constituency, 70% leave....

http://election.news.sky.com/referendum/bolsover-2727

For the 3rd time in his article he says that people who couldn't vote were voting out because they were being exploited.

I was referring to your comment...

re sports direct blog "the majority of jobs went to east European workers".   Surely they wouldn't have had a vote?  'So what is he saying - people voted Brexit because Eastern Europeans were stealing their shitty jobs?'

Yes they probably were...

A new employer opened a new business (the wareshouse) in town.  He effectively employed more immigrants than locals (his agents did, but I don't want to contemplicate it and it is pretty irrelevant).  Before the warehouse opened nobody that lived there had shitty jobs at this warehouse.  It seems to me that lots of locals were given shitty jobs they didn't have before.  How have the immigrants stolen people's shitty jobs?

An unknown amount of warehouse workers voted for brexit.  Tens of thousands of other people voted for brexit in that constituency.  It isn't clear how shitty all these people's jobs were, or even if they had one.  It isn't clear how many had ever even applied to, or would even want to, work at this warehouse.

I would say it is pretty likely that only a very small proportion of the brexiters in that constituency could be described as having had their jobs stolen by immigrants.

Not defending Sports Direct at all here.  

Because I know the area and don't live that far from it, it's an ex coal mining community with a lot of unemployment (Dennis Skinner's constituency). So yes I would rather British citizens have those jobs first and be off benefits. Every job not given to a British citizen is effectively a job 'stolen' if you wish to use that word.

I have no issue with immigration per se, never have and never will, but British citizens should gets those jobs first and immigrants can fill the shortfall. I accept people have different opinions on this but I will never change my mind specifically when talking about low value immigration who don't pay that much tax. A British person getting off benefits and paying a bit of tax in an area of high unemployment is better financially for the UK than an immigrant getting the job and paying a bit of tax.

This is all true but you miss the big case of the leak from the UK economy of their savings being shipped back home to be spent aboard rather than in this country on goods and services.

[     ] big leak

[  X  ] minor downward pressure on currency

Schoolboy error.  

Workers are paid in pounds not zlotys, florins or euros, therefore the pounds are exchanged for foreign currency either in the UK or in the home country of the worker.  The pounds must still be used to buy goods and services in Britain or invested.

It all feels a bit of a none point anyway.  What is the difference beween an immigrant sending some cash home and Woodsey going out and buying a BMW or spending his cash in Asia? 

And the reverse is true too.  There are plenty of UK people working overseas and bringing money back.  These UK emigrants can also be pretty damaging too, spending all their money, and taxes overseas when working then reappearing for the pensions, benefits and free NHS in retirement.

[arbboy]

The comparison was between a lower working class/underclass long term unemployed British citizen signing on getting off the dole and working a job or an immigrant coming from aboard.  Woodsey makes the case for the benefit savings of the former.  Pay both the minimum wage in a job.  Which of them on average keeps more of the money they earn in the UK economy via their spending/saving habits long term and the multiplier effect on the economy of such behaviour?

[Doobs]

The comparison was between a lower working class/underclass long term unemployed British citizen signing on getting off the dole and working a job or an immigrant coming from aboard.  Woodsey makes the case for the benefit savings of the former.  Pay both the minimum wage in a job.  Which of them on average keeps more of the money they earn in the UK economy via their spending/saving habits long term and the multiplier effect on the economy of such behaviour?

I expect the difference is very minor.  People on minimum wages aren't going to send heaps of money home, and will spend much of their money in the UK.  All low earners are going to recycle a bigger percentage of their earnings locally than higher earners do.  The presence of immigrants also creates jobs through their spending just as local people at home does.  The net result is never just -1 job for a local.  And if the local has excess money over their essential needs, they are fairly likely to spend it on imports anyway.  Hence, all this they are stealing our jobs doesn't really stand up to much scrutiny. 

[arbboy]

The comparison was between a lower working class/underclass long term unemployed British citizen signing on getting off the dole and working a job or an immigrant coming from aboard.  Woodsey makes the case for the benefit savings of the former.  Pay both the minimum wage in a job.  Which of them on average keeps more of the money they earn in the UK economy via their spending/saving habits long term and the multiplier effect on the economy of such behaviour?

I expect the difference is very minor.  People on minimum wages aren't going to send heaps of money home, and will spend much of their money in the UK.  All low earners are going to recycle a bigger percentage of their earnings locally than higher earners do.  The presence of immigrants also creates jobs through their spending just as local people at home does.  The net result is never just -1 job for a local.  And if the local has excess money over their essential needs, they are fairly likely to spend it on imports anyway.  Hence, all this they are stealing our jobs doesn't really stand up to much scrutiny. 

Even when they live 2 to a room shared renting a house/shed in a garden!  Cue Daily Mail hype.  I get your point generally though.

[Doobs]

The comparison was between a lower working class/underclass long term unemployed British citizen signing on getting off the dole and working a job or an immigrant coming from aboard.  Woodsey makes the case for the benefit savings of the former.  Pay both the minimum wage in a job.  Which of them on average keeps more of the money they earn in the UK economy via their spending/saving habits long term and the multiplier effect on the economy of such behaviour?

I expect the difference is very minor.  People on minimum wages aren't going to send heaps of money home, and will spend much of their money in the UK.  All low earners are going to recycle a bigger percentage of their earnings locally than higher earners do.  The presence of immigrants also creates jobs through their spending just as local people at home does.  The net result is never just -1 job for a local.  And if the local has excess money over their essential needs, they are fairly likely to spend it on imports anyway.  Hence, all this they are stealing our jobs doesn't really stand up to much scrutiny. 

Even when they live 2 to a room shared renting a house/shed in a garden!  Cue Daily Mail hype.  I get your point generally though.

Not so many sharing a home with mum and dad though.  Swings and roundabouts I guess.

[TightEnd]

at least Liam Fox is collecting some air miles

Click to see full-size image.

[Jon MW]

I think it's nonsense to talk about equality of outcome but we could talk about quality of outcome ahead of equality of opportunity. Ie. What is actually being achieved rather than what have we done to notionally make achievements in 30, 40, 50 years time

Equality of opportunity seems like a pretty trite phrase to me to put a gloss on the fact that not much happens to address the needs of very disadvantaged people.

The problem is also that the equality of outcome that some people (particularly government ministers) aim for isn't actually helpful at all.

One of the targets that I could see them setting as having to have 'equality of outcome' rather than 'equality of opportunity' is state school access to elite universities (for example).

This is already being looked at as a major factor with higher education, and it would be pretty easy to legislate for a minimum percentage of yearly intake coming from state schools - and then the government that does this would hail their own achievement at widening access to elite higher education.

The problem with it is that the percentage of students entering higher education from state schools is a worthless statistic. At the moment there are universities who take almost 100% of their intake from state schools - but who have over 50% drop out rate; whereas there are elite universities who only take about half their intake from state schools - but have a virtually zero percent drop out rate.

In terms of improving people's life chances and widening social mobility they could be seen as roughly equal - and the elite universities could even be said to be doing better (as the 50% who graduate from there are likely to be doing better than their equivalent from the more bog standard higher education institutes); but the current measure would say the elite universities  are doing terribly and the universities where most people drop out are doing well (for social access).

This is the kind of yardsticks politicians are likely to use if they start trying to fix equality of outcome - not only is it going to unfairly skew whatever they're measuring one way or another, it's not even likely to end up being helpful.

[david3103]

Owen Smith's policy agenda shows how Corbyn has shifted Labour's internal debate dramatically leftwards.

Click to see full-size image.

Anyone got a blankety blank cheque book and pen we can use?

Jesus.

What does 20 even mean?  You clearly can't solve it that way.  Does he think power companies are deliberately inefficient?  Does this mean efficient gas is now more preferable to inefficient solar?

And what is 17 about?  Is this extra investment we can't afford or just normal government investment in hospitals, schools etc.  Right now it just looks like random words strung together that sound good, but mean nothing.

Otherwise, it seems like his list is upside down.  Much of the stuff I can agree on is near the bottom.  Things like 4% real on the NHS, in an ideal world with bottomless money everybody could get behind, but just seems crazy when we are struggling to get anywhere near a balance between Government spending and income.

These need carving in stone. Maybe they could use the back of Ed's.

Investing in HS3 presumably implies support for HS2, abandonment of which would remove a huge burden.

[nirvana]

I think it's nonsense to talk about equality of outcome but we could talk about quality of outcome ahead of equality of opportunity. Ie. What is actually being achieved rather than what have we done to notionally make achievements in 30, 40, 50 years time

Equality of opportunity seems like a pretty trite phrase to me to put a gloss on the fact that not much happens to address the needs of very disadvantaged people.

The problem is also that the equality of outcome that some people (particularly government ministers) aim for isn't actually helpful at all.

One of the targets that I could see them setting as having to have 'equality of outcome' rather than 'equality of opportunity' is state school access to elite universities (for example).

This is already being looked at as a major factor with higher education, and it would be pretty easy to legislate for a minimum percentage of yearly intake coming from state schools - and then the government that does this would hail their own achievement at widening access to elite higher education.

The problem with it is that the percentage of students entering higher education from state schools is a worthless statistic. At the moment there are universities who take almost 100% of their intake from state schools - but who have over 50% drop out rate; whereas there are elite universities who only take about half their intake from state schools - but have a virtually zero percent drop out rate.

In terms of improving people's life chances and widening social mobility they could be seen as roughly equal - and the elite universities could even be said to be doing better (as the 50% who graduate from there are likely to be doing better than their equivalent from the more bog standard higher education institutes); but the current measure would say the elite universities  are doing terribly and the universities where most people drop out are doing well (for social access).

This is the kind of yardsticks politicians are likely to use if they start trying to fix equality of outcome - not only is it going to unfairly skew whatever they're measuring one way or another, it's not even likely to end up being helpful.

Easy to agree with you on this. Reminds me of so many nonsensical corporate targets I've seen where no one really benefits except the person saying they set a nonsense target and met it. So many examples like yours of giving the appearance of betterment with little really changing

[Doobs]

I think it's nonsense to talk about equality of outcome but we could talk about quality of outcome ahead of equality of opportunity. Ie. What is actually being achieved rather than what have we done to notionally make achievements in 30, 40, 50 years time

Equality of opportunity seems like a pretty trite phrase to me to put a gloss on the fact that not much happens to address the needs of very disadvantaged people.

The problem is also that the equality of outcome that some people (particularly government ministers) aim for isn't actually helpful at all.

One of the targets that I could see them setting as having to have 'equality of outcome' rather than 'equality of opportunity' is state school access to elite universities (for example).

This is already being looked at as a major factor with higher education, and it would be pretty easy to legislate for a minimum percentage of yearly intake coming from state schools - and then the government that does this would hail their own achievement at widening access to elite higher education.

The problem with it is that the percentage of students entering higher education from state schools is a worthless statistic. At the moment there are universities who take almost 100% of their intake from state schools - but who have over 50% drop out rate; whereas there are elite universities who only take about half their intake from state schools - but have a virtually zero percent drop out rate.

In terms of improving people's life chances and widening social mobility they could be seen as roughly equal - and the elite universities could even be said to be doing better (as the 50% who graduate from there are likely to be doing better than their equivalent from the more bog standard higher education institutes); but the current measure would say the elite universities  are doing terribly and the universities where most people drop out are doing well (for social access).

This is the kind of yardsticks politicians are likely to use if they start trying to fix equality of outcome - not only is it going to unfairly skew whatever they're measuring one way or another, it's not even likely to end up being helpful.

I do think some of your point is fair.  There will always be some inequality.  Equality of outcomes means there can be no reward for parents spending time with their kids etc.  And there is no point in forcing people on to courses when they aren't capable of completing them.  I do think that 50% is a pretty sorry figure though.  Sure that they could move that without any significant change for the worse.   Equality of opportunity is a long way off.  Not sure how you go further without massively screwing around witha whole host of things and producing some very bad unintended consequences.   

FWIW, I am not sure there are many universities with 50% dropout rates, though I am sure there are plenty of courses at some universities.

[OverTheBorder]

Guess it is about time somebody defended the indefensible.

I used to be a big admirer, but think Frank Field has lost his mind.  He said this today of Philip Green

,” Field told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. “I’ve always thought Maxwell meant to pay the money back, he was just going all over the place borrowing money to keep his companies going. When the music stopped he had no money.]“He’s much worse [than Maxwell],” Field told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. “I’ve always thought Maxwell meant to pay the money back, he was just going all over the place borrowing money to keep his companies going. When the music stopped he had no money.

People can think bad things of Philip Green, He clearly could have found a better buyer, but BHS was a dinosaur and likely was going to go bust soon in anybody's hands.  I also very much think that he and others shouldn't be allowed to pay tax on UK profits in Monaco.  But these are side issues to the state of the BHS pension scheme. 

Maxwell flat out stole all the money in the mirror group pension schemes.  All Philip Green did was pay less into the pension schemes than he could have done.  To say that Green is worse than Maxwell is absolutely wrong and it is very misleading given every idiot in the press, and on twitter, seems to be under the impression that Green really did steal from the pension schemes.  But even if Green had paid twice as much as he did, the scheme would still be in a bad mess on wind up.  The scheme was not in a great state when he took over and much of the big deficit is caused by the different basis  pension schemes must use on windup.  FWIW it is likely a toss up if quantitative easing has done as much damage to the prospects of the BHS pension scheme as Philip Green.   

By contrast, the old British Steel scheme is teetering with a much bigger deficit and Frank Field is not in the press accusing those who ran that as worse than Maxwell.  Seriously, why not give those people the same treatment?  Or is it only OK to smear people in the press if they have 3 big f off yachts?

It is absolutely shambolic that a bunch of MPs don't listen to expert advice on something like this and instead choose to mouth off in the media their premeditated conclusions.  It is also pretty disgraceful that Frank Field was allowed to chair an inquiry after he slagged off Philip Green in the media before the inquiry had started.  Was it not apparent to anybody in power that there was absolutely no way he should have headed that inquiry after his statements to the press.  It is very important for people who are effectively acting as judges in these matters are shown to be impartial. 

Whilst this may well be a stain on capitalism, it is very much a stain on democracy that our MPs are able to act in this way.  The sooner the issue of how much Philip Green should pay in to the pension scheme is taken out of the MP's hands and put in the hands of an independent member of the judiciary the better. 

Big +1 Doobs. He didn't break any laws, and yet those who set the laws are scalding him for "moral responsibility" the absolute go to when the law makers have cocked up spectacularly. One of the most misreported cases you will ever find. Halcrow and Tata are as big a deal but they don't sell tabloid inches

[Doobs]

Guess it is about time somebody defended the indefensible.

I used to be a big admirer, but think Frank Field has lost his mind.  He said this today of Philip Green

,” Field told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. “I’ve always thought Maxwell meant to pay the money back, he was just going all over the place borrowing money to keep his companies going. When the music stopped he had no money.]“He’s much worse [than Maxwell],” Field told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. “I’ve always thought Maxwell meant to pay the money back, he was just going all over the place borrowing money to keep his companies going. When the music stopped he had no money.

People can think bad things of Philip Green, He clearly could have found a better buyer, but BHS was a dinosaur and likely was going to go bust soon in anybody's hands.  I also very much think that he and others shouldn't be allowed to pay tax on UK profits in Monaco.  But these are side issues to the state of the BHS pension scheme. 

Maxwell flat out stole all the money in the mirror group pension schemes.  All Philip Green did was pay less into the pension schemes than he could have done.  To say that Green is worse than Maxwell is absolutely wrong and it is very misleading given every idiot in the press, and on twitter, seems to be under the impression that Green really did steal from the pension schemes.  But even if Green had paid twice as much as he did, the scheme would still be in a bad mess on wind up.  The scheme was not in a great state when he took over and much of the big deficit is caused by the different basis  pension schemes must use on windup.  FWIW it is likely a toss up if quantitative easing has done as much damage to the prospects of the BHS pension scheme as Philip Green.   

By contrast, the old British Steel scheme is teetering with a much bigger deficit and Frank Field is not in the press accusing those who ran that as worse than Maxwell.  Seriously, why not give those people the same treatment?  Or is it only OK to smear people in the press if they have 3 big f off yachts?

It is absolutely shambolic that a bunch of MPs don't listen to expert advice on something like this and instead choose to mouth off in the media their premeditated conclusions.  It is also pretty disgraceful that Frank Field was allowed to chair an inquiry after he slagged off Philip Green in the media before the inquiry had started.  Was it not apparent to anybody in power that there was absolutely no way he should have headed that inquiry after his statements to the press.  It is very important for people who are effectively acting as judges in these matters are shown to be impartial. 

Whilst this may well be a stain on capitalism, it is very much a stain on democracy that our MPs are able to act in this way.  The sooner the issue of how much Philip Green should pay in to the pension scheme is taken out of the MP's hands and put in the hands of an independent member of the judiciary the better. 

Big +1 Doobs. He didn't break any laws, and yet those who set the laws are scalding him for "moral responsibility" the absolute go to when the law makers have cocked up spectacularly. One of the most misreported cases you will ever find. Halcrow and Tata are as big a deal but they don't sell tabloid inches

That makes you, me and Piers Morgan.  Not even Katie Hopkins.  What a motley crew we are.  Piers Morgan's defernce was "err he does a lot for charity".  Of course this brought the inevitable reaction on twitter. 

The upside of this is that you get to take the opposing side to some really unpleasant people, so you just know you must be on the right side. 

Meanwhile at the daily hate, they drag the real culprits into the shitstorm. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3707817/Sir-Shifty-s-girl-parties-St-Tropez-sacked-BHS-workers-face-life-dole-Chloe-Green-seen-exclusive-nightspots-alongside-models-millionaires-20-shops-closed-doors-final-time.html. 

[TightEnd]

Corbyn and his opponents are now locked in a permanent struggle.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/07/jeremy-corbyn-and-his-opponents-are-now-locked-permanent-struggle

[TightEnd]

its looking bad or good depending on nwhich newspaper you buy

today's headlines

Click to see full-size image.

Click to see full-size image.

[Sheriff Fatman]

The Armageddon scenario for Labour is potentially in John Bercow's hands:

http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2016/07/27/speaker-poised-to-strip-labour-of-designation-as-her-majestys-opposition-in-autumn/