Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ruth Davidson’s Scottish successes saved TMay’s bacon on June

SystemSystem Posts: 3,967
edited August 9 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ruth Davidson’s Scottish successes saved TMay’s bacon on June 8th but that comes at a price

The chart is very simple but illustrates clearly why Scottish Conservative leader feels able to to put pressure on TMay over the PM’s hardline immigration rhetoric.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 16,570
    Ruth is looking at this from a Scottish perspective. We arguably do not have enough people in Scotland and it is a restraint on the economy.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 7,087
    If Davidson made the case for immigration coupled with a major scaling back of the welfare state, I'd support her. But she isn't, so I don't.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,095
    DavidL said:

    Ruth is looking at this from a Scottish perspective. We arguably do not have enough people in Scotland and it is a restraint on the economy.

    The same applies to many other parts of the UK as well.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 16,570
    Ruth is a different voice in the Conservative party. On social policy she is probably even wetter than Cameron was. I think this reflects not just her own views but also the positions necessary to remain competitive in Scotland where there is a different consensus about things like University fees, taxation and public spending. Personally, as with Cameron, I am a lot happier with most of her positions than I am with the current Westminster party (to the extent zombies actually have positions).

    What is a lot less clear is whether she can speak for the 13 Scottish Tory MPs. I don't think that they are a coherent group in the way Mike's piece indicates. They may become so if Ruth proceeds to have a CDU/CSU type Scottish conservative and UNIONIST party as was discussed in the aftermath of the election but right now they take the whip in Westminster, not from Ruth.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 16,570

    DavidL said:

    Ruth is looking at this from a Scottish perspective. We arguably do not have enough people in Scotland and it is a restraint on the economy.

    The same applies to many other parts of the UK as well.
    That's true but the unfortunate truth is that the immigrants don't go to these areas. They go to London which is already bursting at the seams. And we find ourselves with a disaster in a tower bloc and no idea how many people even lived or died there.

    Ruth also sees the economic consequences of the catastrophic state of the Scottish education system. Since we are incapable of educating sufficient numbers of our own to be employable we need to bring in employable people who were fortunate enough to be educated somewhere else.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 21,487
    DavidL said:

    Ruth is a different voice in the Conservative party. On social policy she is probably even wetter than Cameron was. I think this reflects not just her own views but also the positions necessary to remain competitive in Scotland where there is a different consensus about things like University fees, taxation and public spending. Personally, as with Cameron, I am a lot happier with most of her positions than I am with the current Westminster party (to the extent zombies actually have positions).

    What is a lot less clear is whether she can speak for the 13 Scottish Tory MPs. I don't think that they are a coherent group in the way Mike's piece indicates. They may become so if Ruth proceeds to have a CDU/CSU type Scottish conservative and UNIONIST party as was discussed in the aftermath of the election but right now they take the whip in Westminster, not from Ruth.

    If she appeals to those under 40, gets their votes and keeps Corbyn out I'll wade through blood for her.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 16,570

    DavidL said:

    Ruth is a different voice in the Conservative party. On social policy she is probably even wetter than Cameron was. I think this reflects not just her own views but also the positions necessary to remain competitive in Scotland where there is a different consensus about things like University fees, taxation and public spending. Personally, as with Cameron, I am a lot happier with most of her positions than I am with the current Westminster party (to the extent zombies actually have positions).

    What is a lot less clear is whether she can speak for the 13 Scottish Tory MPs. I don't think that they are a coherent group in the way Mike's piece indicates. They may become so if Ruth proceeds to have a CDU/CSU type Scottish conservative and UNIONIST party as was discussed in the aftermath of the election but right now they take the whip in Westminster, not from Ruth.

    If she appeals to those under 40, gets their votes and keeps Corbyn out I'll wade through blood for her.
    She shows where a successful Conservative Party should be. But that is not where it is.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 21,487
    On topic, immigration isn't just controlled at the UK border.

    I can see a case for giving Holyrood more control over work permits and quotas in Scotland.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 38,385
    Mr. Royale, be a good way to annoy the English. The furore over Winter Fuel in the election surprised me a little. Something like this would go down about as well.

    Who would then speak for England? It'd highlight, again, that Scotland gets devolution and gets nothing but wibbling from the political/media class about the foolish notion of regional assemblies.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 10,009
    Amazing to think that Ruth was one of Tessy's leading pom pom girls a few short months ago.



    'fantastic', 'great'.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 10,686
    off topic of this thread (but on topic on the recent parallel thread):

    Yesterday some were criticising Thatcher's "failure" to pre-empt the Argentinians' aggression towards the Falklands by sending a warship to the region (as Wilson had done in 1977), and now there seems to be criticism ofTrump for doing just that.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 21,487

    Mr. Royale, be a good way to annoy the English. The furore over Winter Fuel in the election surprised me a little. Something like this would go down about as well.

    Who would then speak for England? It'd highlight, again, that Scotland gets devolution and gets nothing but wibbling from the political/media class about the foolish notion of regional assemblies.

    Scotland needs more migrants. England has social and infrastructure pressures.

    I can't see why a solution can't be devised that satisfies both.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 38,385
    edited August 9
    Via Twitter, soldiers have been hit by a car in Paris.


    Edited extra bit: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40873801
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 6,831
    David Cameron was right. Brexit might lead to world war three. And North Korea is not even in the EU.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 7,087

    Mr. Royale, be a good way to annoy the English. The furore over Winter Fuel in the election surprised me a little. Something like this would go down about as well.

    Who would then speak for England? It'd highlight, again, that Scotland gets devolution and gets nothing but wibbling from the political/media class about the foolish notion of regional assemblies.

    Scotland needs more migrants. England has social and infrastructure pressures.

    I can't see why a solution can't be devised that satisfies both.
    We'd need to make sure they were locked in Scotland so to speak!
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 18,363
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Ruth is a different voice in the Conservative party. On social policy she is probably even wetter than Cameron was. I think this reflects not just her own views but also the positions necessary to remain competitive in Scotland where there is a different consensus about things like University fees, taxation and public spending. Personally, as with Cameron, I am a lot happier with most of her positions than I am with the current Westminster party (to the extent zombies actually have positions).

    What is a lot less clear is whether she can speak for the 13 Scottish Tory MPs. I don't think that they are a coherent group in the way Mike's piece indicates. They may become so if Ruth proceeds to have a CDU/CSU type Scottish conservative and UNIONIST party as was discussed in the aftermath of the election but right now they take the whip in Westminster, not from Ruth.

    If she appeals to those under 40, gets their votes and keeps Corbyn out I'll wade through blood for her.
    She shows where a successful Conservative Party should be. But that is not where it is.
    Up to a point. I can't see the Conservatives being more than Scotland's second party, with either the SNP or Labour being first. That's still a far better position than 1997-2015, but I think the party's appeal is to Scots who are both eurosceptic and Unionist. That's 25-30% of the voters, and usefully reaches 40-50% in several constituencies.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 21,487
    tlg86 said:

    Mr. Royale, be a good way to annoy the English. The furore over Winter Fuel in the election surprised me a little. Something like this would go down about as well.

    Who would then speak for England? It'd highlight, again, that Scotland gets devolution and gets nothing but wibbling from the political/media class about the foolish notion of regional assemblies.

    Scotland needs more migrants. England has social and infrastructure pressures.

    I can't see why a solution can't be devised that satisfies both.
    We'd need to make sure they were locked in Scotland so to speak!
    The permit is conditional on employment in Scotland or a Scottish sector. If they are found to be working or living elsewhere they are in breach.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 38,385
    Mr. Royale, set that up and you'd have Khan et al. bleating for the same for London.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,095
    tlg86 said:

    Mr. Royale, be a good way to annoy the English. The furore over Winter Fuel in the election surprised me a little. Something like this would go down about as well.

    Who would then speak for England? It'd highlight, again, that Scotland gets devolution and gets nothing but wibbling from the political/media class about the foolish notion of regional assemblies.

    Scotland needs more migrants. England has social and infrastructure pressures.

    I can't see why a solution can't be devised that satisfies both.
    We'd need to make sure they were locked in Scotland so to speak!
    Maybe Hadrian's wall could be put back to its original purpose.

  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 7,993
    Ruth to win the Spectator politician of the year with Corbyn coming second but winning it in his supporters eyes.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 6,831
    TOPPING said:

    off topic of this thread (but on topic on the recent parallel thread):

    Yesterday some were criticising Thatcher's "failure" to pre-empt the Argentinians' aggression towards the Falklands by sending a warship to the region (as Wilson had done in 1977), and now there seems to be criticism ofTrump for doing just that.

    Mrs Thatcher withdrew HMS Endurance. It wasn't a question of "not sending" anything.

    North Korea is not going to invade South Korea or China and is not likely to. It wants (probably) continued isolation. The situations are not remotely comparable. A better question might be what does China want?
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 6,831
    On North Korea -- I'd be more worried about who they'd sell to, than who they'd invade.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 582
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Ruth is looking at this from a Scottish perspective. We arguably do not have enough people in Scotland and it is a restraint on the economy.

    The same applies to many other parts of the UK as well.
    That's true but the unfortunate truth is that the immigrants don't go to these areas. They go to London which is already bursting at the seams. And we find ourselves with a disaster in a tower bloc and no idea how many people even lived or died there.

    Ruth also sees the economic consequences of the catastrophic state of the Scottish education system. Since we are incapable of educating sufficient numbers of our own to be employable we need to bring in employable people who were fortunate enough to be educated somewhere else.
    On your Grenfell reference - beyond the early rumours, is there any credible evidence that suggests significant illegal subletting or overcrowding at this stage? As far as I have read, the numbers thought to be in the block end up lower than expected, with an average of about 3 people per flat, the rumour of large numbers of people in one room look to be down to people collecting together as the fire spread if anything, and there is now substantial tally between identified, missing, body count and who was supposed to be there.

    Please correct me if my impression is demonstrably wrong, but this has looked to me for a while like the classic lie that has taken root before the truth was even 10% known.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 18,363

    TOPPING said:

    off topic of this thread (but on topic on the recent parallel thread):

    Yesterday some were criticising Thatcher's "failure" to pre-empt the Argentinians' aggression towards the Falklands by sending a warship to the region (as Wilson had done in 1977), and now there seems to be criticism ofTrump for doing just that.

    Mrs Thatcher withdrew HMS Endurance. It wasn't a question of "not sending" anything.

    North Korea is not going to invade South Korea or China and is not likely to. It wants (probably) continued isolation. The situations are not remotely comparable. A better question might be what does China want?
    We won't know what North Korea want until they have done it. Hindsight is an infallible judge.
  • TonyETonyE Posts: 665
    Let's be frank here - Rudd and Hammond are trawling the ranks for support, possibly as a pair, possibly as rivals, to be the one to take over from May. The courting of Ruth Davidson is part of that process.

    The divide is still the same - Leave v Remain (not Soft v Hard Brexit, but Brexit v no Brexit at all), and it will tear the Tory Part apart again before 2022 I suspect. It's really starting to feel like the referendum was only round one.

    Remain's new tactic is to tie us into the EEA permanently, rather than as a way to leave and finally exit altogether - then return to the EU when they have the next move to tiered membership. The plan will be to tear up the EEA, move the SM totally into the EU, with two kinds of membership as projected in the Fundamental Law document from Bertelsmann/Spinelli group- and of course the notice period will be shorter so the choice will be made by the cliff edge that would follow.

    I was a supporter of the EFTA/EEA interim solution in the campaign, but now I'm really beginning to drift away from that as it would appear that the end game will never appear (a proper EFTA/EU FTA that would solve Swiss problem and retain many of the most sensible parts of the single market itself).
  • Innocent_AbroadInnocent_Abroad Posts: 3,294

    tlg86 said:

    Mr. Royale, be a good way to annoy the English. The furore over Winter Fuel in the election surprised me a little. Something like this would go down about as well.

    Who would then speak for England? It'd highlight, again, that Scotland gets devolution and gets nothing but wibbling from the political/media class about the foolish notion of regional assemblies.

    Scotland needs more migrants. England has social and infrastructure pressures.

    I can't see why a solution can't be devised that satisfies both.
    We'd need to make sure they were locked in Scotland so to speak!
    Maybe Hadrian's wall could be put back to its original purpose.

    Why do you want to send half a county in England to Scotland?

  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 2,539
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Ruth is looking at this from a Scottish perspective. We arguably do not have enough people in Scotland and it is a restraint on the economy.

    The same applies to many other parts of the UK as well.
    That's true but the unfortunate truth is that the immigrants don't go to these areas. They go to London which is already bursting at the seams. And we find ourselves with a disaster in a tower bloc and no idea how many people even lived or died there.

    Ruth also sees the economic consequences of the catastrophic state of the Scottish education system. Since we are incapable of educating sufficient numbers of our own to be employable we need to bring in employable people who were fortunate enough to be educated somewhere else.
    Surely immigrants go where the jobs are?
    IMO moving parliament and hopefully a bunch of govt jobs out of London (perhaps temporarily while we renovate, perhaps permanently) is the sort of radical solution that should be considered.
  • JPJ2JPJ2 Posts: 315
    Mere posturing by Davidson in an attempt to persuade the electors of the 13 Tories in Scotland that they were not fooled into voting Tory at the GE.

    She will achieve little or nothing and peak Tory/ Davidson in Scotland is already in the past.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,095

    tlg86 said:

    Mr. Royale, be a good way to annoy the English. The furore over Winter Fuel in the election surprised me a little. Something like this would go down about as well.

    Who would then speak for England? It'd highlight, again, that Scotland gets devolution and gets nothing but wibbling from the political/media class about the foolish notion of regional assemblies.

    Scotland needs more migrants. England has social and infrastructure pressures.

    I can't see why a solution can't be devised that satisfies both.
    We'd need to make sure they were locked in Scotland so to speak!
    Maybe Hadrian's wall could be put back to its original purpose.

    Why do you want to send half a county in England to Scotland?

    North Northumberland has a football team in Scottish league 2
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,095
    JPJ2 said:

    Mere posturing by Davidson in an attempt to persuade the electors of the 13 Tories in Scotland that they were not fooled into voting Tory at the GE.

    She will achieve little or nothing and peak Tory/ Davidson in Scotland is already in the past.

    As opposed to the posturing by TMay
  • stodgestodge Posts: 3,250

    On topic, immigration isn't just controlled at the UK border.

    I can see a case for giving Holyrood more control over work permits and quotas in Scotland.

    Ruth Davidson is sounding like Angela Merkel. The economic argument for migration (as distinct from the humanitarian, social and cultural arguments) is quite strong. For an economy to grow, capacity of all kinds has to increase and labour is part of that capacity. If more jobs are created, workers are needed to fill them. Merkel's much-derided (on here) declaration on admitting Syrian refugees was wholly predicated on the economic argument - bring in the people, there are jobs needing to be done. They'll earn the money, spend it and grow the economy again.

    Davidson sees a skills shortage and a demand for labour in Scotland and sees a solution just as Merkel does and Blair did.

    The problem is or are the other aspects of unplanned un co-ordinated economic migration. We have, in effect, created new slums in parts of London with 12-14 people living in 3-bedroom houses or outbuildings. Existing infrastructure (transport, healthcare, education) cannot cope with the sudden influx of people and creak badly. Regrettably, not all those who arrive are here to work and make a new life for themselves and their families - an open door beings criminality or those who prefer to live off others.

    The cultural and social impacts of economic migration have had political impacts too and will continue to do so. Those who voted LEAVE in the expectation leaving the EU will close the door on uncontrolled economic migration might be disappointed to say the least if leaving the EU doesn't close that door after all.

    There is an argument and a very strong one for a controlled managed immigration process. Our economy will always need specialist and skilled people in key areas and occasionally more capacity in other areas. There's also the argument that in providing training and study opportunities for those willing to learn and then exporting that knowledge back to their own countries we all benefit and I get that. The process should be transparent and equitable for all non-UK citizens.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 21,487

    Mr. Royale, set that up and you'd have Khan et al. bleating for the same for London.

    Maybe we should?

    We have to find a solution the whole country can buy into that bridges the divide, or this political and constitutional sectarianism will never end.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 38,385
    Mr. Stodge, much of that problem could be overcome if the politicians and police were willing to enforce the law and assert the superiority of our culture over backward ones. Things like FGM being unacceptable, or investigating rape even if the victims are white working class girls and boys.

    I'll believe that when I see it. We have more prosecutions for bacon hate crime than FGM.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 21,487
    Sean_F said:

    TOPPING said:

    off topic of this thread (but on topic on the recent parallel thread):

    Yesterday some were criticising Thatcher's "failure" to pre-empt the Argentinians' aggression towards the Falklands by sending a warship to the region (as Wilson had done in 1977), and now there seems to be criticism ofTrump for doing just that.

    Mrs Thatcher withdrew HMS Endurance. It wasn't a question of "not sending" anything.

    North Korea is not going to invade South Korea or China and is not likely to. It wants (probably) continued isolation. The situations are not remotely comparable. A better question might be what does China want?
    We won't know what North Korea want until they have done it. Hindsight is an infallible judge.
    In any military confrontation North Korea would eventually lose, the question is whether politics would intervene to force a ceasefire first.

    The risk is that they shell/grab temporarily gain the upper hand in South Korea before the US and its allies can muster forces to totally defeat them, but after enough impact to force a brokered ceasefire.

    I just don't think democracies are willing to tolerate mass casualties anymore.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 19,797

    David Cameron was right. Brexit might lead to world war three. And North Korea is not even in the EU.

    Apparently Pyongyang has offered to lay down its nuclear weapons if the UK withdraws Article 50.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 10,686

    TOPPING said:

    off topic of this thread (but on topic on the recent parallel thread):

    Yesterday some were criticising Thatcher's "failure" to pre-empt the Argentinians' aggression towards the Falklands by sending a warship to the region (as Wilson had done in 1977), and now there seems to be criticism ofTrump for doing just that.

    Mrs Thatcher withdrew HMS Endurance. It wasn't a question of "not sending" anything.

    North Korea is not going to invade South Korea or China and is not likely to. It wants (probably) continued isolation. The situations are not remotely comparable. A better question might be what does China want?
    I think the point was that pre-emptive action pour discourager les autres is fraught with danger and the nuance has to be exactly right. As you say, Maggie withdrew HMS Endurance, "to reduce tensions". The balance of these things is very difficult to get right. Donald has given it a go and is being criticised for being heavy handed. Sort of a can't win situation.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 21,487
    rcs1000 said:

    David Cameron was right. Brexit might lead to world war three. And North Korea is not even in the EU.

    Apparently Pyongyang has offered to lay down its nuclear weapons if the UK withdraws Article 50.
    lol!!
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 38,385
    Mr. Royale, then you'd get a Yorkshire demand, a Cornish demand, an East Anglian demand. You'd carve up England into pathetic little fiefdoms engaged in politically entrenched division.

    We need an English Parliament, otherwise fools like Khan and Clegg with no care for England will see this land divided forever. Sleepwalking into ill-considered devolution with long term consequences should be something everyone politically interested should be very well aware of.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 22,424

    Mr. Royale, be a good way to annoy the English. The furore over Winter Fuel in the election surprised me a little. Something like this would go down about as well.

    Who would then speak for England? It'd highlight, again, that Scotland gets devolution and gets nothing but wibbling from the political/media class about the foolish notion of regional assemblies.

    Scotland needs more migrants. England has social and infrastructure pressures.

    I can't see why a solution can't be devised that satisfies both.
    When I worked in NZ, and when my father worked in the USA, both of our visas were tied to particular employers in particular locations.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 19,797
    tlg86 said:

    Mr. Royale, be a good way to annoy the English. The furore over Winter Fuel in the election surprised me a little. Something like this would go down about as well.

    Who would then speak for England? It'd highlight, again, that Scotland gets devolution and gets nothing but wibbling from the political/media class about the foolish notion of regional assemblies.

    Scotland needs more migrants. England has social and infrastructure pressures.

    I can't see why a solution can't be devised that satisfies both.
    We'd need to make sure they were locked in Scotland so to speak!
    We don't do a very good job of dealing with illegal immigration and illegal working today. If you see a group of men cleaning cars, there is a fair chance they are Albanians with no right to work here, and yet we do nothing to stop it. This is nothing to do with the EU, and everything to do with our failure to enforce existing laws.

    In the US, there are visas (such as the E2 visa that I am on) that allow me to work only for a specific company. There is no reason why you cannot also have visas that only allow you to work in a certain area. (You already have this in Canada.) But this would all be for nothing if we do not enforce the law.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 38,385
    Mr. Topping, the joy of tribal politics is that you already know your opponent is wrong, and you just have to look for reasons. None of that pesky 'thinking' involved :p
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 8,602
    stodge said:

    On topic, immigration isn't just controlled at the UK border.

    I can see a case for giving Holyrood more control over work permits and quotas in Scotland.

    Ruth Davidson is sounding like Angela Merkel. The economic argument for migration (as distinct from the humanitarian, social and cultural arguments) is quite strong. For an economy to grow, capacity of all kinds has to increase and labour is part of that capacity. If more jobs are created, workers are needed to fill them. Merkel's much-derided (on here) declaration on admitting Syrian refugees was wholly predicated on the economic argument - bring in the people, there are jobs needing to be done. They'll earn the money, spend it and grow the economy again.

    Davidson sees a skills shortage and a demand for labour in Scotland and sees a solution just as Merkel does and Blair did.

    The problem is or are the other aspects of unplanned un co-ordinated economic migration. We have, in effect, created new slums in parts of London with 12-14 people living in 3-bedroom houses or outbuildings. Existing infrastructure (transport, healthcare, education) cannot cope with the sudden influx of people and creak badly. Regrettably, not all those who arrive are here to work and make a new life for themselves and their families - an open door beings criminality or those who prefer to live off others.

    The cultural and social impacts of economic migration have had political impacts too and will continue to do so. Those who voted LEAVE in the expectation leaving the EU will close the door on uncontrolled economic migration might be disappointed to say the least if leaving the EU doesn't close that door after all.

    There is an argument and a very strong one for a controlled managed immigration process. Our economy will always need specialist and skilled people in key areas and occasionally more capacity in other areas. There's also the argument that in providing training and study opportunities for those willing to learn and then exporting that knowledge back to their own countries we all benefit and I get that. The process should be transparent and equitable for all non-UK citizens.
    What will the labour situation be like if the UK stops borrowing a trillion quid per decade ?

    Unskilled immigrant workers might be needed for a coffee shop and car wash economy but I don't see the owners of the coffee shops and car washes providing the housing and public services their unskilled immigrant workers need.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 10,009
    DavidL said:


    Ruth also sees the economic consequences of the catastrophic state of the Scottish education system. Since we are incapable of educating sufficient numbers of our own to be employable we need to bring in employable people who were fortunate enough to be educated somewhere else.

    Hasn't Scotland got one of the lowest youth unemployment rates in the EU?
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,095

    Mr. Royale, then you'd get a Yorkshire demand, a Cornish demand, an East Anglian demand. You'd carve up England into pathetic little fiefdoms engaged in politically entrenched division.

    We need an English Parliament, otherwise fools like Khan and Clegg with no care for England will see this land divided forever. Sleepwalking into ill-considered devolution with long term consequences should be something everyone politically interested should be very well aware of.

    Mr. Topping, the joy of tribal politics is that you already know your opponent is wrong, and you just have to look for reasons. None of that pesky 'thinking' involved :p

    As you often demonstrate
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 8,602
    Can anyone explain how removing students from migration numbers reduces immigration.

    Student comes to the UK = one immigrant
    Student leaves UK = one emigrant

    Not that students ** matter to people with concerns about immigration. What matters is the effect that immigrants have on pay rates, housing, public services and various cultural issues.

    What I think of as the 'foreign languages in the supermarket' effect.

    Anyone who thinks that by somehow manipulating the stats so that official immigration falls without doing something about the effects of actual immigration will remove immigration as a political issue is merely showing how little they understand the issue.

    ** Assuming the students are actually proper students and not 'students'.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 38,385
    Mr. Smithson, assuming you're going with the PB Tory line, yesterday I said May didn't get enough blame for the way she handled planning and Article 50...
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 17,017
    London and Scotland, both of which need and want immigrants, are apparently to be deprived of them in order to keep fearful pensioners in the shires safe from the danger of having to see a foreigner.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 38,385
    Mr. Meeks, it's astonishing to think some people are not enamoured with metropolitan opinions when they're expressed so persuasively :p
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 875

    In any military confrontation North Korea would eventually lose, the question is whether politics would intervene to force a ceasefire first.

    There is no military option on the Korean peninsula. The only thing that will shift the current regime is a tap on the shoulder from China telling them the game is up.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 18,363

    London and Scotland, both of which need and want immigrants, are apparently to be deprived of them in order to keep fearful pensioners in the shires safe from the danger of having to see a foreigner.

    Good
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 8,602

    London and Scotland, both of which need and want immigrants, are apparently to be deprived of them in order to keep fearful pensioners in the shires safe from the danger of having to see a foreigner.

    There's fifty million plus people in the UK outside of London and Scotland so how about enticing some of them to migrate ?

    Forty acres and a car / Forty square metres and a bike offered free to anyone who moves to Scotland / London.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 17,017

    London and Scotland, both of which need and want immigrants, are apparently to be deprived of them in order to keep fearful pensioners in the shires safe from the danger of having to see a foreigner.

    There's fifty million plus people in the UK outside of London and Scotland so how about enticing some of them to migrate ?

    Forty acres and a car / Forty square metres and a bike offered free to anyone who moves to Scotland / London.
    Pensioners don't want to migrate.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 18,363

    Sean_F said:

    TOPPING said:

    off topic of this thread (but on topic on the recent parallel thread):

    Yesterday some were criticising Thatcher's "failure" to pre-empt the Argentinians' aggression towards the Falklands by sending a warship to the region (as Wilson had done in 1977), and now there seems to be criticism ofTrump for doing just that.

    Mrs Thatcher withdrew HMS Endurance. It wasn't a question of "not sending" anything.

    North Korea is not going to invade South Korea or China and is not likely to. It wants (probably) continued isolation. The situations are not remotely comparable. A better question might be what does China want?
    We won't know what North Korea want until they have done it. Hindsight is an infallible judge.
    In any military confrontation North Korea would eventually lose, the question is whether politics would intervene to force a ceasefire first.

    The risk is that they shell/grab temporarily gain the upper hand in South Korea before the US and its allies can muster forces to totally defeat them, but after enough impact to force a brokered ceasefire.

    I just don't think democracies are willing to tolerate mass casualties anymore.
    A willingness to tolerate casualties, like army recruitment, tends to rise in wartime.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 17,660
    Dura_Ace said:

    In any military confrontation North Korea would eventually lose, the question is whether politics would intervene to force a ceasefire first.

    There is no military option on the Korean peninsula. The only thing that will shift the current regime is a tap on the shoulder from China telling them the game is up.
    I fear it's more nuanced than that. Firstly, if NK were to attack preemptively, then there would have to be a 'military option' in response.

    Otherwise, anything that is done preemptively against NK, should be done with the knowledge of the Chinese.

    Perhaps pertinent questions are: what do NK want, and what game are the playing? A unified Korea? World socialism?
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 8,602

    London and Scotland, both of which need and want immigrants, are apparently to be deprived of them in order to keep fearful pensioners in the shires safe from the danger of having to see a foreigner.

    There's fifty million plus people in the UK outside of London and Scotland so how about enticing some of them to migrate ?

    Forty acres and a car / Forty square metres and a bike offered free to anyone who moves to Scotland / London.
    Pensioners don't want to migrate.
    They do but not to London or Scotland.

    In any case its not pensioners you say you want but young workers.

    Make London and Scotland more desirable to them and they will migrate.

    As London is the only region of the UK with negative internal migration its pretty clear that its not a desirable place to live for the average person.

    London needs to address that issue - not only to be more attractive to potential migrants but also for the benefit of the people already living there.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 8,429
    Well, all this rain, while very good for
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 22,424

    Can anyone explain how removing students from migration numbers reduces immigration.

    Student comes to the UK = one immigrant
    Student leaves UK = one emigrant

    Not that students ** matter to people with concerns about immigration. What matters is the effect that immigrants have on pay rates, housing, public services and various cultural issues.

    What I think of as the 'foreign languages in the supermarket' effect.

    Anyone who thinks that by somehow manipulating the stats so that official immigration falls without doing something about the effects of actual immigration will remove immigration as a political issue is merely showing how little they understand the issue.

    ** Assuming the students are actually proper students and not 'students'.

    The reason is that historically about 20% of students acquire permenant residence 5 years later, about 50 000 per year. That may change with the tighter rules on working post graduation.

    While 99% of Chinese or Koreans return home the number staying on is much higher from the subcontinent, middle east and africa.

    Students should remain in the numbers.

    It is worth noting tthat without immigration there would be a contracting working age population. The population growth is of the elderly and of children. The working age population is projected to be broadly stable over next decades even on current migration.

    Post Brexit Britain will look more like the demographics of Wales.
  • Alice_AforethoughtAlice_Aforethought Posts: 772
    edited August 9

    London and Scotland, both of which need and want immigrants, are apparently to be deprived of them in order to keep fearful pensioners in the shires safe from the danger of having to see a foreigner.

    Which is very odd indeed. At least some of the old bumpkins must be able to remember that immigrants from exactly the same places as now were extremely useful to the RAF in 1940 (in fact, if you hadn't been trained by the RAF, you were statistically more likely to become an ace). There was a similar shortage of skilled labour.

    Surely every yokel who's ever visited London by car from the west is aware of the Polish War Memorial on the A40. They cannot all think it's a memorial commemorating our war against Poland. There have been Poles (ex airmen and women) living near Northolt for about 75 years.

    My mother has been one to bang on about them immigrants, being a Daily Mail reader. We took her away to a spa hotel with us at Christmas and she banged loudly on about the staff being immigrants within their earshot. But even she has dialled it back a bit since going into hospital for a hip replacement in May, recovery after a stroke in June, and having live in home care for the last 6 weeks. She has noticed that about 50 to 100% of the people she now relies on are them immigrants.

    Is the problem with the yokels simply that they read the Daily Mail and never go into hotels or hospitals?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 17,017

    London and Scotland, both of which need and want immigrants, are apparently to be deprived of them in order to keep fearful pensioners in the shires safe from the danger of having to see a foreigner.

    There's fifty million plus people in the UK outside of London and Scotland so how about enticing some of them to migrate ?

    Forty acres and a car / Forty square metres and a bike offered free to anyone who moves to Scotland / London.
    Pensioners don't want to migrate.
    They do but not to London or Scotland.

    In any case its not pensioners you say you want but young workers.

    Make London and Scotland more desirable to them and they will migrate.

    As London is the only region of the UK with negative internal migration its pretty clear that its not a desirable place to live for the average person.

    London needs to address that issue - not only to be more attractive to potential migrants but also for the benefit of the people already living there.
    GDP per capita by PPP in, for example, the Northeast or Wales is below that in the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Slovakia or Estonia. London has no difficulty getting potential migrants from those countries. It seems that the residents of the Northeast and Wales prefer to sponge off Londoners and complain about the place at the same time.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 10,686
    Cyclefree said:

    Well, all this rain, while very good for

    I hope you weren't typing this as you were walking along and by mistake bumped into a lamppost.
  • London and Scotland, both of which need and want immigrants, are apparently to be deprived of them in order to keep fearful pensioners in the shires safe from the danger of having to see a foreigner.

    There's fifty million plus people in the UK outside of London and Scotland so how about enticing some of them to migrate ?

    Forty acres and a car / Forty square metres and a bike offered free to anyone who moves to Scotland / London.
    Pensioners don't want to migrate.
    They do but not to London or Scotland.

    In any case its not pensioners you say you want but young workers.

    Make London and Scotland more desirable to them and they will migrate.

    As London is the only region of the UK with negative internal migration its pretty clear that its not a desirable place to live for the average person.

    London needs to address that issue - not only to be more attractive to potential migrants but also for the benefit of the people already living there.
    Blimey, bit of an ask
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 7,087

    London and Scotland, both of which need and want immigrants, are apparently to be deprived of them in order to keep fearful pensioners in the shires safe from the danger of having to see a foreigner.

    There's fifty million plus people in the UK outside of London and Scotland so how about enticing some of them to migrate ?

    Forty acres and a car / Forty square metres and a bike offered free to anyone who moves to Scotland / London.
    Pensioners don't want to migrate.
    They do but not to London or Scotland.

    In any case its not pensioners you say you want but young workers.

    Make London and Scotland more desirable to them and they will migrate.

    As London is the only region of the UK with negative internal migration its pretty clear that its not a desirable place to live for the average person.

    London needs to address that issue - not only to be more attractive to potential migrants but also for the benefit of the people already living there.
    GDP per capita by PPP in, for example, the Northeast or Wales is below that in the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Slovakia or Estonia. London has no difficulty getting potential migrants from those countries. It seems that the residents of the Northeast and Wales prefer to sponge off Londoners and complain about the place at the same time.
    Yes, so I suggest you campaign to abolish the welfare state.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 19,797

    Can anyone explain how removing students from migration numbers reduces immigration.

    Student comes to the UK = one immigrant
    Student leaves UK = one emigrant

    Not that students ** matter to people with concerns about immigration. What matters is the effect that immigrants have on pay rates, housing, public services and various cultural issues.

    What I think of as the 'foreign languages in the supermarket' effect.

    Anyone who thinks that by somehow manipulating the stats so that official immigration falls without doing something about the effects of actual immigration will remove immigration as a political issue is merely showing how little they understand the issue.

    ** Assuming the students are actually proper students and not 'students'.

    The reason is that historically about 20% of students acquire permenant residence 5 years later, about 50 000 per year. That may change with the tighter rules on working post graduation.

    While 99% of Chinese or Koreans return home the number staying on is much higher from the subcontinent, middle east and africa.

    Students should remain in the numbers.

    It is worth noting tthat without immigration there would be a contracting working age population. The population growth is of the elderly and of children. The working age population is projected to be broadly stable over next decades even on current migration.

    Post Brexit Britain will look more like the demographics of Wales.
    Politicians have never been particularly honest about the challenges of having a diminishing number of workers supporting an every increasing number of retirees.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 2,539



    The reason is that historically about 20% of students acquire permenant residence 5 years later, about 50 000 per year. That may change with the tighter rules on working post graduation.

    While 99% of Chinese or Koreans return home the number staying on is much higher from the subcontinent, middle east and africa.

    Students should remain in the numbers.

    It is worth noting tthat without immigration there would be a contracting working age population. The population growth is of the elderly and of children. The working age population is projected to be broadly stable over next decades even on current migration.

    Post Brexit Britain will look more like the demographics of Wales.

    In the short term - if we said no more foreign students tomorrow - that would help us meet the 100k target because the students we currently have would emigrate once their courses finish, and no new ones would be coming in.

    On the other hand - if we increase our student numbers (which is what our universities are trying to do) that will make the statistics look a lot worse, even if the reality is that these students aren't going to stick around.

    The point is students are normally here temporarily and are a massive boost to our universities and economy. In many cases they subsidise the university educations of British students. As and when they cease to be students (ie they get jobs after graduation) - then we should count them as immigrants.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 8,602

    London and Scotland, both of which need and want immigrants, are apparently to be deprived of them in order to keep fearful pensioners in the shires safe from the danger of having to see a foreigner.

    There's fifty million plus people in the UK outside of London and Scotland so how about enticing some of them to migrate ?

    Forty acres and a car / Forty square metres and a bike offered free to anyone who moves to Scotland / London.
    Pensioners don't want to migrate.
    They do but not to London or Scotland.

    In any case its not pensioners you say you want but young workers.

    Make London and Scotland more desirable to them and they will migrate.

    As London is the only region of the UK with negative internal migration its pretty clear that its not a desirable place to live for the average person.

    London needs to address that issue - not only to be more attractive to potential migrants but also for the benefit of the people already living there.
    GDP per capita by PPP in, for example, the Northeast or Wales is below that in the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Slovakia or Estonia. London has no difficulty getting potential migrants from those countries. It seems that the residents of the Northeast and Wales prefer to sponge off Londoners and complain about the place at the same time.
    I see that you ignored the point I was making.

    So I'll make it a different way - if London is so enticing why is there negative migration between it and the rest of Britain ? Sort out the reasons for that and you will have flows to London from the rest of Britain.

    And the proper comparison would be to compare the NorthEast and Wales with their equivalents in foreign countries not the foreign countries as a whole.

    Anyway I have to do some work now so have a nice day.

  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,095
    edited August 9

    London and Scotland, both of which need and want immigrants, are apparently to be deprived of them in order to keep fearful pensioners in the shires safe from the danger of having to see a foreigner.

    There's fifty million plus people in the UK outside of London and Scotland so how about enticing some of them to migrate ?

    Forty acres and a car / Forty square metres and a bike offered free to anyone who moves to Scotland / London.
    Could I have the 40 square metres to the east of Princess Street in Edinburgh looking north from Waverley Station?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 8,429
    Well, all this rain, while very good for my garden, is somewhat tiresome.

    I hope it deters our local fox, though, which a couple of weeks ago got into the house late at night and crept upstairs (or more likely was chased by the cat) into the bathroom where it proceeded to make the most almighty racket as it tried to escape while hurling shampoo bottles around with gay abandon.

    Thank God for the beer festival later this week and my visit to the a safe and exotic part of the Mediterranean next week, from where I shall report - @SeanT style - on my adventures!

    On topic, we clearly need immigrant politicians since our own are so plainly not up to the mark.

    It would also be nice if when youngsters apply for jobs, even short-term ones, employers bothered to reply (a polite "no thanks" would be nice). All very well complaining about our young and why Eastern Europeans are more amenable but some emplyers don't even bother to give youngsters here a chance. This plea is entirely connected to the difficulties my son, who has had serious health issues making his CV rather less "vanilla" than some, has had in getting a hearing from possible employers. Not everyone has a well-formed out career plan from birth. Without actually trying a variety of jobs how do you know what you would like or be good at? Grrrr.....
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 17,660
    Cyclefree said:

    Well, all this rain, while very good for

    ... not finishing sentences? ;)

    It's so wet and miserable out there, that I went to the supermarket and bought the little 'un a winter coat.

    Who turned off summer?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 8,429
    TOPPING said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Well, all this rain, while very good for

    I hope you weren't typing this as you were walking along and by mistake bumped into a lamppost.
    Fat fingers.......

    Even I am not mad enough to go walking in this rain!
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 24,016
    Another normal day in modern france....

    Paris attack: Hunt for car driven at soldiers injuring six
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40873801
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 38,385
    Miss Cyclefree, it's a while ago now but when I sent around an unpublished, pre-Bane of Souls story to various agents, not getting a reply was far worse than getting Rejection Form A. It's bloody frustrating.

    I hope young Mister Cyclefree enjoy better fortune in the near future.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 22,424

    London and Scotland, both of which need and want immigrants, are apparently to be deprived of them in order to keep fearful pensioners in the shires safe from the danger of having to see a foreigner.

    There's fifty million plus people in the UK outside of London and Scotland so how about enticing some of them to migrate ?

    Forty acres and a car / Forty square metres and a bike offered free to anyone who moves to Scotland / London.
    Pensioners don't want to migrate.
    They do but not to London or Scotland.

    In any case its not pensioners you say you want but young workers.

    Make London and Scotland more desirable to them and they will migrate.

    As London is the only region of the UK with negative internal migration its pretty clear that its not a desirable place to live for the average person.

    London needs to address that issue - not only to be more attractive to potential migrants but also for the benefit of the people already living there.
    GDP per capita by PPP in, for example, the Northeast or Wales is below that in the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Slovakia or Estonia. London has no difficulty getting potential migrants from those countries. It seems that the residents of the Northeast and Wales prefer to sponge off Londoners and complain about the place at the same time.
    I see that you ignored the point I was making.

    So I'll make it a different way - if London is so enticing why is there negative migration between it and the rest of Britain ? Sort out the reasons for that and you will have flows to London from the rest of Britain.

    And the proper comparison would be to compare the NorthEast and Wales with their equivalents in foreign countries not the foreign countries as a whole.

    Anyway I have to do some work now so have a nice day.

    There has long been net internal migration away from London as people get older, and either acquire family houses in commuterland, or sell up and retire to country or coast. If you look at population movements at younger ages, there is net flow of graduates to London, for example.

    I see this as a fairly healthy part of the lifecycle of people within a metropolis.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 8,429

    Cyclefree said:

    Well, all this rain, while very good for

    ... not finishing sentences? ;)

    It's so wet and miserable out there, that I went to the supermarket and bought the little 'un a winter coat.

    Who turned off summer?
    It is very annoying. I got up early because I wanted to go to a nursery a bit of a way out of London to look for some particular climbers. Thought I could make a day of it, lunch somewhere etc etc. But now I shall probably have to swim there or wait another day.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 17,660
    Cyclefree said:

    TOPPING said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Well, all this rain, while very good for

    I hope you weren't typing this as you were walking along and by mistake bumped into a lamppost.
    Fat fingers.......

    Even I am not mad enough to go walking in this rain!
    Ahem. Thanks. ;)
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 933
    stodge said:



    There is an argument and a very strong one for a controlled managed immigration process.

    Yes, but that stands in contrast to the uncontrolled and unmanaged one that we have at present (within the EU).

    The argument about the economic impact of migration shouldn't be about GDP growth but about per capita GDP growth and about who benefits from that growth. Uncontrolled immigration helps the former (in the short term) but not the latter (especially in the longer term). A chronic problem in the UK over the past decade or so has been stagnant productivity and declining real wages, as we entrench our position as an economy that depends on an abundant external supply of people willing to work for very little thus avoiding the need for capital investment. The demand to continue uncontrolled EU migration is all about corporate employers wanting to continue with that model.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 17,017

    London and Scotland, both of which need and want immigrants, are apparently to be deprived of them in order to keep fearful pensioners in the shires safe from the danger of having to see a foreigner.

    There's fifty million plus people in the UK outside of London and Scotland so how about enticing some of them to migrate ?

    Forty acres and a car / Forty square metres and a bike offered free to anyone who moves to Scotland / London.
    Pensioners don't want to migrate.
    They do but not to London or Scotland.

    In any case its not pensioners you say you want but young workers.

    Make London and Scotland more desirable to them and they will migrate.

    As London is the only region of the UK with negative internal migration its pretty clear that its not a desirable place to live for the average person.

    London needs to address that issue - not only to be more attractive to potential migrants but also for the benefit of the people already living there.
    GDP per capita by PPP in, for example, the Northeast or Wales is below that in the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Slovakia or Estonia. London has no difficulty getting potential migrants from those countries. It seems that the residents of the Northeast and Wales prefer to sponge off Londoners and complain about the place at the same time.
    I see that you ignored the point I was making.

    So I'll make it a different way - if London is so enticing why is there negative migration between it and the rest of Britain ? Sort out the reasons for that and you will have flows to London from the rest of Britain.

    And the proper comparison would be to compare the NorthEast and Wales with their equivalents in foreign countries not the foreign countries as a whole.

    Anyway I have to do some work now so have a nice day.

    The reason for that is that the rest of the country is lavishly subsidised by London and so the incentives for non-Londoners to migrate to London are far more muted. I'm all in favour of slashing those subsidies, of course.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 22,424
    edited August 9

    London and Scotland, both of which need and want immigrants, are apparently to be deprived of them in order to keep fearful pensioners in the shires safe from the danger of having to see a foreigner.

    There's fifty million plus people in the UK outside of London and Scotland so how about enticing some of them to migrate ?

    Forty acres and a car / Forty square metres and a bike offered free to anyone who moves to Scotland / London.
    Pensioners don't want to migrate.
    They do but not to London or Scotland.

    In any case its not pensioners you say you want but young workers.

    Make London and Scotland more desirable to them and they will migrate.

    As London is the only region of the UK with negative internal migration its pretty clear that its not a desirable place to live for the average person.

    London needs to address that issue - not only to be more attractive to potential migrants but also for the benefit of the people already living there.
    GDP per capita by PPP in, for example, the Northeast or Wales is below that in the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Slovakia or Estonia. London has no difficulty getting potential migrants from those countries. It seems that the residents of the Northeast and Wales prefer to sponge off Londoners and complain about the place at the same time.
    I see that you ignored the point I was making.

    So I'll make it a different way - if London is so enticing why is there negative migration between it and the rest of Britain ?

    Anyway I have to do some work now so have a nice day.

    There has long been net internal migration away from London as people get older, and either acquire family houses in commuterland, or sell up and retire to country or coast. If you look at population movements at younger ages, there is net flow of graduates to London, for example.

    I see this as a fairly healthy part of the lifecycle of people within a metropolis.
    FWIW a reference:

    http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105222726/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/migration1/internal-migration-by-local-authorities-in-england-and-wales/year-ending-june-2013/sty-2---focus-on-london-moves.html

    There ia a substantial net inflow of Britons to London aged 20-30, and a net outflow of older people and children, presumably with their families. There is a similar pattern in other big cities.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 17,660

    Miss Cyclefree, it's a while ago now but when I sent around an unpublished, pre-Bane of Souls story to various agents, not getting a reply was far worse than getting Rejection Form A. It's bloody frustrating.

    I hope young Mister Cyclefree enjoy better fortune in the near future.

    There was a program on recently about the traditional London bootmaker, John Lobbs. A woman working there said she wrote a letter to apply for a job, and the owner wrote back saying: "We don't have many women, but you're welcome to come and have a look around."

    She did, and was offered a job.

    A small act of kindness by Lobb that set a woman on her course for life.

    (There was an addendum to the story. Apparently after being offered the job, she was told women could not wear trousers. She turned up for her first day wearing not only trousers, but jeans. Nothing happened).
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 38,385
    edited August 9
    Meanwhile, in socialist paradise:

    Edited extra bit: nice story, Mr. Jessop :)
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,046
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Well, all this rain, while very good for

    ... not finishing sentences? ;)

    It's so wet and miserable out there, that I went to the supermarket and bought the little 'un a winter coat.

    Who turned off summer?
    It is very annoying. I got up early because I wanted to go to a nursery a bit of a way out of London to look for some particular climbers. Thought I could make a day of it, lunch somewhere etc etc. But now I shall probably have to swim there or wait another day.
    Just abandoned my weekly 'Heart and Sole’ walk; an hour at a fast pace to stimiulate the heart. No point, however, in getting soaked.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 2,539

    London and Scotland, both of which need and want immigrants, are apparently to be deprived of them in order to keep fearful pensioners in the shires safe from the danger of having to see a foreigner.

    There's fifty million plus people in the UK outside of London and Scotland so how about enticing some of them to migrate ?

    Forty acres and a car / Forty square metres and a bike offered free to anyone who moves to Scotland / London.
    Pensioners don't want to migrate.
    They do but not to London or Scotland.

    In any case its not pensioners you say you want but young workers.

    Make London and Scotland more desirable to them and they will migrate.

    As London is the only region of the UK with negative internal migration its pretty clear that its not a desirable place to live for the average person.

    London needs to address that issue - not only to be more attractive to potential migrants but also for the benefit of the people already living there.
    GDP per capita by PPP in, for example, the Northeast or Wales is below that in the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Slovakia or Estonia. London has no difficulty getting potential migrants from those countries. It seems that the residents of the Northeast and Wales prefer to sponge off Londoners and complain about the place at the same time.
    I see that you ignored the point I was making.

    So I'll make it a different way - if London is so enticing why is there negative migration between it and the rest of Britain ? Sort out the reasons for that and you will have flows to London from the rest of Britain.

    And the proper comparison would be to compare the NorthEast and Wales with their equivalents in foreign countries not the foreign countries as a whole.

    Anyway I have to do some work now so have a nice day.

    The reason for that is that the rest of the country is lavishly subsidised by London and so the incentives for non-Londoners to migrate to London are far more muted. I'm all in favour of slashing those subsidies, of course.
    You're turning into John Galt here...
    Aren't you a Labour supporter?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 7,087

    London and Scotland, both of which need and want immigrants, are apparently to be deprived of them in order to keep fearful pensioners in the shires safe from the danger of having to see a foreigner.

    There's fifty million plus people in the UK outside of London and Scotland so how about enticing some of them to migrate ?

    Forty acres and a car / Forty square metres and a bike offered free to anyone who moves to Scotland / London.
    Pensioners don't want to migrate.
    They do but not to London or Scotland.

    In any case its not pensioners you say you want but young workers.

    Make London and Scotland more desirable to them and they will migrate.

    As London is the only region of the UK with negative internal migration its pretty clear that its not a desirable place to live for the average person.

    London needs to address that issue - not only to be more attractive to potential migrants but also for the benefit of the people already living there.
    GDP per capita by PPP in, for example, the Northeast or Wales is below that in the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Slovakia or Estonia. London has no difficulty getting potential migrants from those countries. It seems that the residents of the Northeast and Wales prefer to sponge off Londoners and complain about the place at the same time.
    I see that you ignored the point I was making.

    So I'll make it a different way - if London is so enticing why is there negative migration between it and the rest of Britain ?

    Anyway I have to do some work now so have a nice day.

    There has long been net internal migration away from London as people get older, and either acquire family houses in commuterland, or sell up and retire to country or coast. If you look at population movements at younger ages, there is net flow of graduates to London, for example.

    I see this as a fairly healthy part of the lifecycle of people within a metropolis.
    FWIW a reference:

    http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105222726/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/migration1/internal-migration-by-local-authorities-in-england-and-wales/year-ending-june-2013/sty-2---focus-on-london-moves.html

    There ia a substantial net inflow of Britons to London aged 20-30, and a net outflow of older people and children, presumably with their families. There is a similar pattern in other big cities.
    But presumably the outflow of older people is larger than the inflow of younger people. It would be interesting to know how that has changed over time.
  • nunuonenunuone Posts: 224
    99% of so called "students" from the Indian sub continent are actually working full time cash in hand jobs. They should not be taken out of the immigration numbers. The immigration target is not hurting universities since the number of foreign students doing *degree* level courses have increased since the target, it is the fake useless courses that are being cut.

    The politicians seem happy to turn a blind eye to those coming here in false pretences as per usual.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 17,017
    rkrkrk said:

    London and Scotland, both of which need and want immigrants, are apparently to be deprived of them in order to keep fearful pensioners in the shires safe from the danger of having to see a foreigner.

    There's fifty million plus people in the UK outside of London and Scotland so how about enticing some of them to migrate ?

    Forty acres and a car / Forty square metres and a bike offered free to anyone who moves to Scotland / London.
    Pensioners don't want to migrate.
    They do but not to London or Scotland.

    In any case its not pensioners you say you want but young workers.

    Make London and Scotland more desirable to them and they will migrate.

    As London is the only region of the UK with negative internal migration its pretty clear that its not a desirable place to live for the average person.

    London needs to address that issue - not only to be more attractive to potential migrants but also for the benefit of the people already living there.
    GDP per capita by PPP in, for example, the Northeast or Wales is below that in the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Slovakia or Estonia. London has no difficulty getting potential migrants from those countries. It seems that the residents of the Northeast and Wales prefer to sponge off Londoners and complain about the place at the same time.
    I see that you ignored the point I was making.

    So I'll make it a different way - if London is so enticing why is there negative migration between it and the rest of Britain ? Sort out the reasons for that and you will have flows to London from the rest of Britain.

    And the proper comparison would be to compare the NorthEast and Wales with their equivalents in foreign countries not the foreign countries as a whole.

    Anyway I have to do some work now so have a nice day.

    The reason for that is that the rest of the country is lavishly subsidised by London and so the incentives for non-Londoners to migrate to London are far more muted. I'm all in favour of slashing those subsidies, of course.
    You're turning into John Galt here...
    Aren't you a Labour supporter?
    Not a Labour supporter, though I'd consider voting for them if they dumped Jeremy Corbyn.

    I do, however, find it a bit rich that pampered pensioners in the back of beyond expect to dictate social policy to those who underwrite their lifestyle.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 1,801
    edited August 9
    Cyclefree said:

    Well, all this rain, while very good for my garden, is somewhat tiresome.

    I hope it deters our local fox, though, which a couple of weeks ago got into the house late at night and crept upstairs (or more likely was chased by the cat) into the bathroom where it proceeded to make the most almighty racket as it tried to escape while hurling shampoo bottles around with gay abandon.

    Thank God for the beer festival later this week and my visit to the a safe and exotic part of the Mediterranean next week, from where I shall report - @SeanT style - on my adventures!

    On topic, we clearly need immigrant politicians since our own are so plainly not up to the mark.

    It would also be nice if when youngsters apply for jobs, even short-term ones, employers bothered to reply (a polite "no thanks" would be nice). All very well complaining about our young and why Eastern Europeans are more amenable but some emplyers don't even bother to give youngsters here a chance. This plea is entirely connected to the difficulties my son, who has had serious health issues making his CV rather less "vanilla" than some, has had in getting a hearing from possible employers. Not everyone has a well-formed out career plan from birth. Without actually trying a variety of jobs how do you know what you would like or be good at? Grrrr.....

    They don't appreciate that job applicants can also be customers, and there are therefore sound business reasons for ensuring that they're treated courteously. Some 20 years ago I had an interview for a job at Asda that I didn't get. I rang twice for feedback but my call was never returned. For the last six years, the nearest supermarket to my home has been Asda, but I travel slightly further to go to Morrisons, where I spend around £100 each week.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 1,094
    Rain - I have an app on my iPad called Wunderground with radar maps showing the areas which have recently got drenched. It's normally useful to work out when to dart out for the "messages" as they say in these parts. But I have now discovered the Schadenfreude value of this app.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 10,044
    edited August 9
    Ruth, Hammond, Rudd... The point is still the same, as long as one Brexiteer finishes up on the final ballot that's who Con members will vote for in the end in the Con leadership contest (as it will be the only way of securing Brexit during the transition period)

    So in many ways this is all pointless as none of these people will be leading the Party in the end.

    Ruth's fall back down to Earth during the leadership contest will be quite amusing though...
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 1,094
    GIN1138 said:

    Ruth, Hammond, Rudd... The point is still the same, as long as one Brexiteer finishes up on the final ballot that's who Con members will vote for in the end as it will be the only way of securing Brexit during the transition period)

    So in many ways this is all pointless as none of these people will be leading the Party in the end.

    Ruth's fall back down to Earth during the leadership contest will be quite amusing though...

    As meteoric as her rise?
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 637

    London and Scotland, both of which need and want immigrants, are apparently to be deprived of them in order to keep fearful pensioners in the shires safe from the danger of having to see a foreigner.

    There's fifty million plus people in the UK outside of London and Scotland so how about enticing some of them to migrate ?

    Forty acres and a car / Forty square metres and a bike offered free to anyone who moves to Scotland / London.
    Could I have the 40 square metres to the east of Princess Street in Edinburgh looking north from Waverley Station?
    Er! Where? If you are referring to Calton Hill, be aware that a couple of times a year, there are rather interesting parties taking place.....

    https://edinburghfestival.list.co.uk/festival/edinburgh-beltane-fire-festival/

    https://www.edinburghguide.com/events/samhuinn
  • nunuonenunuone Posts: 224
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 14,698
    GIN1138 said:

    Ruth, Hammond, Rudd... The point is still the same, as long as one Brexiteer finishes up on the final ballot that's who Con members will vote for in the end in the Con leadership contest (as it will be the only way of securing Brexit during the transition period)

    Which Conservative Brexiteer will be the first to say that the idea was good but May/Davis/Boris/Fox screwed it up?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,046

    Cyclefree said:

    Well, all this rain, while very good for my garden, is somewhat tiresome.

    I hope it deters our local fox, though, which a couple of weeks ago got into the house late at night and crept upstairs (or more likely was chased by the cat) into the bathroom where it proceeded to make the most almighty racket as it tried to escape while hurling shampoo bottles around with gay abandon.

    Thank God for the beer festival later this week and my visit to the a safe and exotic part of the Mediterranean next week, from where I shall report - @SeanT style - on my adventures!

    On topic, we clearly need immigrant politicians since our own are so plainly not up to the mark.

    It would also be nice if when youngsters apply for jobs, even short-term ones, employers bothered to reply (a polite "no thanks" would be nice). All very well complaining about our young and why Eastern Europeans are more amenable but some emplyers don't even bother to give youngsters here a chance. This plea is entirely connected to the difficulties my son, who has had serious health issues making his CV rather less "vanilla" than some, has had in getting a hearing from possible employers. Not everyone has a well-formed out career plan from birth. Without actually trying a variety of jobs how do you know what you would like or be good at? Grrrr.....

    They don't appreciate that job applicants can also be customers, and there are therefore sound business reasons for ensuring that they're treated courteously. Some 20 years ago I had an interview for a job at Asda that I didn't get. I rang twice for feedback but my call was never returned. For the last six years, the nearest supermarket to my home has been Asda, but I travel slightly further to go to Morrisons, where I spend around £100 each week.
    Be nice to people on the way up .......
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,046
    nunuone said:

    99% of so called "students" from the Indian sub continent are actually working full time cash in hand jobs. They should not be taken out of the immigration numbers. The immigration target is not hurting universities since the number of foreign students doing *degree* level courses have increased since the target, it is the fake useless courses that are being cut.

    The politicians seem happy to turn a blind eye to those coming here in false pretences as per usual.

    99%. Really? Must have significantly changed in the 20 or so years since I had anything to do with students.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 11,617
    nunuone said:

    99% of so called "students" from the Indian sub continent are actually working full time cash in hand jobs. They should not be taken out of the immigration numbers. The immigration target is not hurting universities since the number of foreign students doing *degree* level courses have increased since the target, it is the fake useless courses that are being cut.

    The politicians seem happy to turn a blind eye to those coming here in false pretences as per usual.

    If the number of foreign students doing legitimate degree level courses have increased then that is a good thing but is a failure as far as migration targets are concerned. A success should not be a failure.

    Similarly cutting the number of legitimate degree level courses would be a bad thing, but would be a positive as far as migration targets are concerned - while doing nothing to ease concerns about migration. A failure should not be considered a success.

    Why not simultaneously take out the number of legitimate students who are studying from the figures while also raising requirements in order to eliminate fake courses/students? Say that universities can get uncapped numbers of legitimate students but the burden is on them to prove they are legitimate.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 18,363

    rkrkrk said:

    London and Scotland, both of which need and want immigrants, are apparently to be deprived of them in order to keep fearful pensioners in the shires safe from the danger of having to see a foreigner.

    There's fifty million plus people in the UK outside of London and Scotland so how about enticing some of them to migrate ?

    Forty acres and a car / Forty square metres and a bike offered free to anyone who moves to Scotland / London.
    Pensioners don't want to migrate.
    They do but not to London or Scotland.

    In any case its not pensioners you say you want but young workers.

    Make London and Scotland more desirable to them and they will migrate.

    As London is the only region of the UK with negative internal migration its pretty clear that its not a desirable place to live for the average person.

    London needs to address that issue - not only to be more attractive to potential migrants but also for the benefit of the people already living there.
    GDP per capita by PPP in, for example, the Northeast or Wales is below that in the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Slovakia or Estonia. London has no difficulty getting potential migrants from those countries. It seems that the residents of the Northeast and Wales prefer to sponge off Londoners and complain about the place at the same time.
    I see that you ignored the point I was making.

    So I'll make it a different way - if London is so enticing why is there negative migration between it and the rest of Britain ? Sort out the reasons for that and you will have flows to London from the rest of Britain.

    And the proper comparison would be to compare the NorthEast and Wales with their equivalents in foreign countries not the foreign countries as a whole.

    Anyway I have to do some work now so have a nice day.

    The reason for that is that the rest of the country is lavishly subsidised by London and so the incentives for non-Londoners to migrate to London are far more muted. I'm all in favour of slashing those subsidies, of course.
    You're turning into John Galt here...
    Aren't you a Labour supporter?
    Not a Labour supporter, though I'd consider voting for them if they dumped Jeremy Corbyn.

    I do, however, find it a bit rich that pampered pensioners in the back of beyond expect to dictate social policy to those who underwrite their lifestyle.
    That's the price one pays for living in a liberal democracy. The franchise is no longer restricted to the rich.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 5,568
    edited August 9
    @Cyclefree Agreed. Also, I wish the best of luck to your son. In the end, I'm sure everything will work itself out. As my mum always says, 'there's always a way'.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 13,797

    Mr. Royale, be a good way to annoy the English. The furore over Winter Fuel in the election surprised me a little. Something like this would go down about as well.

    Who would then speak for England? It'd highlight, again, that Scotland gets devolution and gets nothing but wibbling from the political/media class about the foolish notion of regional assemblies.

    Scotland needs more migrants. England has social and infrastructure pressures.

    I can't see why a solution can't be devised that satisfies both.
    When I worked in NZ, and when my father worked in the USA, both of our visas were tied to particular employers in particular locations.
    That's the same in most countries.

    I'd go for a system whereby visas (by employment category) get auctioned by government to employers, with the funds raised being spent on training for the British workforce. A variation would be that a firm hiring say a plumber or nurse from abroad must also take on a British apprentice at the same time.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 38,385
    Mr. Borough, same fellow:


    The UK political scene is ripe for a new party of centrists [that said, I think it'd be seen either as right or left, the idea of being precisely middle-of-the-road is mealy-mouthed]. Labour's led by a far left fool, the Conservatives are becalmed in disarray, and UKIP has withered. Good potential for a new party.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 3,976
    The 257 countries of the world are listed at

    http://www.listofcountriesoftheworld.com/

    Interestingly it includes the Isle of Man and Jersey but not Scotland.

    Just thought I would mention it.

This discussion has been closed.