Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ever get the feeling you’ve been cheated?

SystemSystem Posts: 3,967
edited October 11 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ever get the feeling you’ve been cheated?

All around the developed world, political loyalties are breaking down.  Electorates in Britain and the USA have gambled on reckless options in Brexit and Trump.  The hard right is a formidable political force in traditionally prosperous countries such as Sweden and Austria (where they may enter coalition government after the imminent election), and anti-immigrant voters have found their voice in France and Germany.  Secessionists ride high in Scotland and Catalonia.  Centrists find themselves outflanked on the left too, with centre left parties recording historic lows in many countries.  Everywhere you can find people who are mad as hell and who aren’t going to take it any longer.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 3,881
    edited October 11
    Alastair, an excellent and thought provoking article, many thanks.

    "Johnny Rotten finished the last Sex Pistols gig with the line “Ever get the feeling you’ve been cheated?” Right now, the public have that feeling. Politicians who fail to understand that are in trouble."

    I cannot think of a better way to sum up the continued underlying public political discontent over the last decade.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 14,304
    Labour voters now earn more than Tory voters. Probably skewed by London, but it is interesting to note the Tories winning in Stoke and losing in the capital in 2017. Maybe the ABs have done SO well over recent years, they can now afford a social conscience. (Although whether that will survive a Corbyn/McDonnell cash-grab remains to be seen....)
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 2,539
    edited October 11
    Great piece.

    GDP/capita still below 2007 peak.
    Real wages have fallen since then also I think.

    Those two statistics may be driving anti immigration sentiment.

    Although worth noting it is the young who have seen the largest drops in wages since 2008...

  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 2,539

    Labour voters now earn more than Tory voters.

    You have a link for that?
    I think Labour are doing better with middle class than before and worse with working class - but hat we are still far from crossover...

    https://www.ft.com/content/dac3a3b2-4ad7-11e7-919a-1e14ce4af89b
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 19,791
    As an aside, the Catalans seem to have taken a step back from UDI. the question is whether Madrid seeks compromise by proposing greater autonomy, or piles on the pressure.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 7,085
    It is possible that the competition that immigrants appear to provide for public sector resources may play a part. In most areas this is not particularly rational because immigrants are not particularly heavy users of public sector resources, but at a time when public sector resources are under strain, any additional strain on them is going to come under scrutiny.

    I guess it depends if you see housing as a public sector resource or not...
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 17,313
    rcs1000 said:

    As an aside, the Catalans seem to have taken a step back from UDI. the question is whether Madrid seeks compromise by proposing greater autonomy, or piles on the pressure.

    They've said no negotiations until Catalonia has a general election
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 2,514
    There have been some outstanding headers recently.

    Better and more varied above the line than below.

    Thanks to the authors.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 21,484
    edited October 11
    On immigration, I think Sean Fear put it well when he said that opposition to this was driven by the fact people don't like the social change that comes with it, nor the pressures on public infrastructure (not just public services, but also housing and new roads, traffic and noise) that it creates.

    So it's a function of both cultural and economic concerns - a form of conservatism (small c).

    I'm not sure I buy the argument that if the economy was growing strongly with real wages increasing well at all levels of society that concern about immigration would diminish (especially since in such a scenario it would still run at high levels) and what I find interesting about the subject is that - whilst concern does increase with age - there is still a high number of young voters that want reductions.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 2,514
    edited October 11

    On immigration, I think Sean Fear put it well when he said that opposition to this was driven by the fact people don't like the social change that comes with it, nor the pressures on public infrastructure (not just public services, but also housing and new roads, traffic and noise) that it creates.

    So it's a function of both cultural and economic concerns - a form of conservatism (small c).

    I'm not sure I buy the argument that if the economy was growing strongly with real wages increasing well at all levels of society that concern about immigration would diminish (especially since in such a scenario it would still run at high levels) and what I find interesting about the subject is that - whilst concern does increase with age - there is still a high number of young voters that want reductions.

    I don't see when wages I rise while there is a global pool of underutilised cheap labour. Some of it is here, some not far over the channel, and masses in africa, south America, Asia and other undeveloped countries.

    Is Primark still doing well or is there a new entrant in the market under cutting them?
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107
    Excellent piece by Meeks, the referendum showed how much out of touch MPs, especially the then PM are. May reinforces the perception with her blandness, people want opinions, conviction, not fence sitting.

    On a more positive note enjoy this:

    PS I challenge any Remainers to refute the Moggster's points

    http://yourbrexit.co.uk/news/watch-jacob-rees-mogg-destroys-the-custom-union-argument-in-just-90-seconds/
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 15,753
    Young Meeks shows he gets the levels of discontent, which makes it more curious he thinks voters should continue to support the system that created it.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 9,357
    edited October 11
    philiph said:

    On immigration, I think Sean Fear put it well when he said that opposition to this was driven by the fact people don't like the social change that comes with it, nor the pressures on public infrastructure (not just public services, but also housing and new roads, traffic and noise) that it creates.

    So it's a function of both cultural and economic concerns - a form of conservatism (small c).

    I'm not sure I buy the argument that if the economy was growing strongly with real wages increasing well at all levels of society that concern about immigration would diminish (especially since in such a scenario it would still run at high levels) and what I find interesting about the subject is that - whilst concern does increase with age - there is still a high number of young voters that want reductions.

    I don't see when wages I rise while there is a global pool of underutilised cheap labour. Some of it is here, some not far over the channel, and masses in africa, south America, Asia and other undeveloped countries.

    Is Primark still doing well or is there a new entrant in the market under cutting them?
    I think that's largely right. I've always thought that globalisation was going to drive a rough and ready trend towards equalisation of incomes across the globe, impeded mainly by education, language and transport costs. All three are being resolved - more education in countries like China and India, the steady spread of adequate English and the plunge in transport costs to the point that you can buy a jar of Guatemalan jam for less than the empty jar used to cost.

    In a macro-global way this is on the whole a good thing - nobody who has seen China evolve from a famine-stricken wreck to today's growing powerhouse can possibly wish they were back in the good old days. But it creates uncertainty and losers all over the west. Coupled with rapid social change - of which immigration is undoubtedly a part - it leaves people feeling uneasy and indeed cheated.

    There isn't an easy solution. We need to recognise that we're a medium-sized economy unlikely to grow rapidly for a long time, and discuss rationally how to spread the opportunities and costs fairly, without kidding people that we're going to fund great improvements through accelerating growth.

    Thanks to Alastair for a very stimulating piece.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 22,416
    edited October 11
    Great header @AlastairMeeks.

    "So voters are seeing public services under strain. They are feeling the taxes but not seeing the spending. Meanwhile, the private sector is also failing to impress. The country is changing and not in ways that the voters like. Johnny Rotten finished the last Sex Pistols gig with the line “Ever get the feeling you’ve been cheated?” Right now, the public have that feeling. Politicians who fail to understand that are in trouble."

    To a large extent this is down to an increasing dependency ratio, as our working age population remains static (static at current rates of immigration). Population growth is almost entirely in the elderly over the next 15 years. Whether these costs are paid by taxes, or by private consolidation of wealth in housing, economically the burden falls on the workers. There is no getting away from this and reducing immigration exacerbates the issue.
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107

    philiph said:

    On immigration, I think Sean Fear put it well when he said that opposition to this was driven by the fact people don't like the social change that comes with it, nor the pressures on public infrastructure (not just public services, but also housing and new roads, traffic and noise) that it creates.

    So it's a function of both cultural and economic concerns - a form of conservatism (small c).

    I'm not sure I buy the argument that if the economy was growing strongly with real wages increasing well at all levels of society that concern about immigration would diminish (especially since in such a scenario it would still run at high levels) and what I find interesting about the subject is that - whilst concern does increase with age - there is still a high number of young voters that want reductions.

    I don't see when wages I rise while there is a global pool of underutilised cheap labour. Some of it is here, some not far over the channel, and masses in africa, south America, Asia and other undeveloped countries.

    Is Primark still doing well or is there a new entrant in the market under cutting them?
    I think that's largely right. I've always thought that globalisation was going to drive a rough and ready trend towards equalisation of incomes across the globe, impeded mainly by education, language and transport costs. All three are being resolved - more education in countries like China and India, the steady spread of adequate English and the plunge in transport costs to the point that you can buy a jar of Guatemalan jam for less than the empty jar used to cost.

    In a macro-global way this is on the whole a good thing - nobody who has seen China evolve from a famine-stricken wreck to today's growing powerhouse can possibly wish they were back in the good old days. But it creates uncertainty and losers all over the west. Coupled with rapid social change - of which immigration is undoubtedly a part - it leaves people feeling uneasy and indeed cheated.

    There isn't an easy solution. We need to recognise that we're a medium-sized economy unlikely to grow rapidly for a long time, and discuss rationally how to spread the opportunities and costs fairly, without kidding people that we're going to fund great improvements through accelerating growth.

    Thanks to Alastair for a very stimulating piece.
    Oh come on Nick we're not a medium size economy we're the 5th largest in the world despite not being in the top 20 largest populations and having a tiny land mass compared with others.

    Its this negativity and naval gazing that won Leave the referendum, we should be trading with the whole world instead of obsessing about what Malta and Croatia think
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,002
    An excellent header.
    It's not entirely puzzling, but does not speak well of our politics, that the extent of the wealth destruction of the crash is so little appreciated.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,002
    There's a very good Danny Finklestein article in today's Times calling for the resignation of the Chief Constable of Wiltshire.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,274
    edited October 11
    Great article.

    Apologies for the splurge, but here's few other explanations for "why?" & "why now?" re Corbyn/Brexit/Trump/Catalonia that I find convincing;

    The inability (or unwillingness) of existing state/party structures to contain/repress dissent of the status quo (GOP/Trump, Lab/Corbyn)

    Splits in the elites (gove/boris) / political opportunists

    Charismatic leaders (trump/farage/boris/corbyn).

    The austerity argument I agree with, but it only really works if it's combined with a widespread subjective sense of relative deprivation. In order to get angry enough to ditch the status quo (when you weren't that angry before), you have to believe that we're not all in this together. You can't be happy with your lot, like you used to be. You have to feel your social/economic status has declined relative to others. This is where the flattening of information/networks comes in. Now you can check your bosses house price on zoopla. Fire up your facebook feed. etc etc.
  • felixfelix Posts: 6,667
    rcs1000 said:

    As an aside, the Catalans seem to have taken a step back from UDI. the question is whether Madrid seeks compromise by proposing greater autonomy, or piles on the pressure.

    There has been no step back - Puidgemont has given Madrid an ultimatum to talk now or independence in a few weeks. but the 'talk' has to be about how to manage the independence not about whether it happens. that's what you might call a very spiky olive branch.

    All in all the mess continues.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,107
    I think Alistair is right about austerity. Pay awards came out in my school a couple of weeks ago. Let's just say there was a lot of discontent about the reluctance to move people up the main scale. And there are an awful lot of public sector workers in the same boat.

    However, I would also add I think the killer punch in education is not salaries but class sizes. Blair had the right idea to try and cut them, although he never really made it work, but they are now rising more or less inexorably due to massively increased demand while only limited increases in funding are available, and the concomitant workload is straining things to absolute snapping point.

    I'm lucky personally this year as 75% of my timetable is A level where the classes are small anyway, but I can foresee an extreme crisis in eighteen months.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 21,484

    philiph said:

    On immigration, I think Sean Fear put it well when he said that opposition to this was driven by the fact people don't like the social change that comes with it, nor the pressures on public infrastructure (not just public services, but also housing and new roads, traffic and noise) that it creates.

    So it's a function of both cultural and economic concerns - a form of conservatism (small c).

    I'm not sure I buy the argument that if the economy was growing strongly with real wages increasing well at all levels of society that concern about immigration would diminish (especially since in such a scenario it would still run at high levels) and what I find interesting about the subject is that - whilst concern does increase with age - there is still a high number of young voters that want reductions.

    I don't see when wages I rise while there is a global pool of underutilised cheap labour. Some of it is here, some not far over the channel, and masses in africa, south America, Asia and other undeveloped countries.

    Is Primark still doing well or is there a new entrant in the market under cutting them?
    I think that's largely right. I've always thought that globalisation was going to drive a rough and ready trend towards equalisation of incomes across the globe, impeded mainly by education, language and transport costs. All three are being resolved - more education in countries like China and India, the steady spread of adequate English and the plunge in transport costs to the point that you can buy a jar of Guatemalan jam for less than the empty jar used to cost.

    In a macro-global way this is on the whole a good thing - nobody who has seen China evolve from a famine-stricken wreck to today's growing powerhouse can possibly wish they were back in the good old days. But it creates uncertainty and losers all over the west. Coupled with rapid social change - of which immigration is undoubtedly a part - it leaves people feeling uneasy and indeed cheated.

    There isn't an easy solution. We need to recognise that we're a medium-sized economy unlikely to grow rapidly for a long time, and discuss rationally how to spread the opportunities and costs fairly, without kidding people that we're going to fund great improvements through accelerating growth.

    Thanks to Alastair for a very stimulating piece.
    An astute post - we need to live within our means and also remain focused on wealth creation and productivity growth, however, as that is the only place extra money is coming from.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 10,673
    Good piece and yes it's the march of history.

    There simply is no way (and it has been coming since the late '70s in China's case) that developing countries were not going to post a threat to the first world and we are beginning to see that being played out now.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 14,678

    Oh come on Nick we're not a medium size economy we're the 5th largest in the world despite not being in the top 20 largest populations and having a tiny land mass compared with others.

    Its this negativity and naval gazing that won Leave the referendum, we should be trading with the whole world instead of obsessing about what Malta and Croatia think

    Newsflash: It is possible to be the 5th largest economy and still be medium sized. The UK represents less than 4% of the global economy.

    It is also possible to trade with the world while being part of a union with Malta and Croatia. Being in a union with the outer Hebrides and Northern Ireland doesn't make England any less global, does it?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 10,673
    On yesterday's topic about Remainers deserting the Cons. Perhaps the plan hard been to give the Cons a shock and then come back with the party suitably chastened.

    Problem for the Cons is that they have since done nothing to attract back those voters and quite a lot to repel them further.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 8,160
    Nigelb said:

    There's a very good Danny Finklestein article in today's Times calling for the resignation of the Chief Constable of Wiltshire.

    Seems a bit random.....
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 2,539

    Excellent piece by Meeks, the referendum showed how much out of touch MPs, especially the then PM are. May reinforces the perception with her blandness, people want opinions, conviction, not fence sitting.

    On a more positive note enjoy this:

    PS I challenge any Remainers to refute the Moggster's points

    http://yourbrexit.co.uk/news/watch-jacob-rees-mogg-destroys-the-custom-union-argument-in-just-90-seconds/

    Narrowly on the coffee point - I think there are lots of exceptions for poor countries so that they don't have to pay the tariff he mentions.

    I think Brazil is the only country which actually pays the MFN rate of 8/9%, all the others pay 2-3% tariff, or nothing.

    http://www.ico.org/documents/icc-107-7e-tariffs-trade.pdf
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,002
    ydoethur said:

    I think Alistair is right about austerity. Pay awards came out in my school a couple of weeks ago. Let's just say there was a lot of discontent about the reluctance to move people up the main scale. And there are an awful lot of public sector workers in the same boat.

    However, I would also add I think the killer punch in education is not salaries but class sizes. Blair had the right idea to try and cut them, although he never really made it work, but they are now rising more or less inexorably due to massively increased demand while only limited increases in funding are available, and the concomitant workload is straining things to absolute snapping point.

    I'm lucky personally this year as 75% of my timetable is A level where the classes are small anyway, but I can foresee an extreme crisis in eighteen months.

    A situation which if anything is worse in many primary schools.
    The marking load alone for a class of 28 children can be crushing.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 112
    From the OP:
    "There is a loose inverse correlation between levels of immigration in an area and hostility to it (a phenomenon also seen in election results in the USA and Germany). This partly reflects that fact that immigrants are unsurprisingly more in favour of immigration than native. It is sometimes suggested that anti-immigration sentiment is driven in low immigration areas by observation of what has happened in high immigration areas. This would be more convincing if the areas most hostile to immigration didn’t include some of the most deprived areas of the country."

    This "inverse correlation" is particularly apparent to me here in Berlin and fits in with my experience in Southern England as well. I live in a borough which has had constantly a high level of immigration since the fifties including it's "fair share" of the many 2015 refugees. There is in places very visible deprivation (unemployment, poor housing, alcoholism and homelessness). And most immigrants do not have the right to vote. If one buys into the anti-immigration rhetoric this should be a good area for the AfD, but they were firmly in 6th place in the election.

    On the polish border east of Dresden, the AfD won one of their 3 direct mandate seats, something that the "Liberals" failed to do anywhere in Germany in 2013 and in 2017. I don't know the constituency well but I was there on holiday this year. The impact of immigration is low. There is some Polish influence, as Poland is just a few miles away, but it is not the "Multi-Kulti" mix that you get in Berlin. There threat of unemployment for the locals is not due to immigration.

    If I had to guess what is driving this paradox, it is much more due to helplessness rather than deprivation. The drinkers who gather at xxx-platz in the Berlin at 8 in the morning have almost nothing, but they do know others who have crawled a couple of rungs up the ladder, got a minimum wage job and their own flat. They also meet many people with a good enough life without having to sell their soul to finance or business. You can easily travel round the city and if you want to seek help it is vbery easy to find.

    In the AfD heartlands, rural areas not so far from a cities, there are not many job vacancies, it is hard to move on up the ladder and those who want to move to the city. Those who are visibly well off usually types who commute to Dresden in their BMWs and suits, which is no role model for the struggling. Public transport (although better than in rural England) makes life without a car difficult. The unemployed just stay at home (there is nothing for them to do in town) and the people who do have jobs fear losing it in the next 12 months with little chance of finding a new one. Essentially these problems have nothing to do with immigration, but somehow the nationalist's anti-immigration politics is popular in these areas.


  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 112
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    I think Alistair is right about austerity. Pay awards came out in my school a couple of weeks ago. Let's just say there was a lot of discontent about the reluctance to move people up the main scale. And there are an awful lot of public sector workers in the same boat.

    However, I would also add I think the killer punch in education is not salaries but class sizes. Blair had the right idea to try and cut them, although he never really made it work, but they are now rising more or less inexorably due to massively increased demand while only limited increases in funding are available, and the concomitant workload is straining things to absolute snapping point.

    I'm lucky personally this year as 75% of my timetable is A level where the classes are small anyway, but I can foresee an extreme crisis in eighteen months.

    A situation which if anything is worse in many primary schools.
    The marking load alone for a class of 28 children can be crushing.
    Agreed. Britain needs to move away from the education model, that everything including homework after every lesson has to be assessed.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 12,011
    Interesting header. Austerity isn't over, as Mr Meeks says. Indeed, I fear it will be getting far worse.

    We are overdue a recession and it could be a very bad one if the unravelling of QE goes awry. The central banks have little or nothing left in their lockers. The world is awash with debt. Assets are in a bubble.

    And the UK is adding Brexit to the mix.

    I really fear if voters think they've had enough of pain, they sadly have not seen anything yet.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 12,844
    Wow. I think this is perhaps one of the best thread headers I have ever read on here. However much we might disagree below the line, Alastair does regularly nail it in his OPs.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 38,365
    Good morning, everyone.

    You're wrong about the [relative] rise of the far right. That's not down to immigration, but a combination of integration and terrorism. That's why it's so damned foolish for the mainstream not to address legitimate concerns on those fronts, and to defend British cultural values.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 1,200
    Excellent thread header Mr Meeks. A credit to this website!
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 22,416
    Roger said:

    Nigelb said:

    There's a very good Danny Finklestein article in today's Times calling for the resignation of the Chief Constable of Wiltshire.

    Seems a bit random.....
    Presumably to do with this:

  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 442
    TOPPING said:

    On yesterday's topic about Remainers deserting the Cons. Perhaps the plan hard been to give the Cons a shock and then come back with the party suitably chastened.

    Problem for the Cons is that they have since done nothing to attract back those voters and quite a lot to repel them further.

    This is indeed true, but I find it hard to believe many of them will vote Labour next time round (or, for that matter, Lib Dem). In 2017 a Con majority seemed nailed on. Now with the very real prospect of a Labour government will turkeys really vote for Christmas?

    Clearly a lot of it will depend on who leads the Conservatives into the next election, and also whether they are able to demonstrate contrition for some of their more egregious mistakes.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 24,104
    That is a very fine article, Mr Meeks - thank-you.

    As I have said on here few times before: once a majority of people feel they have no stake in the society in which they live that society becomes unsustainable. We are not at that point yet, but we are getting there. When the tipping point comes, the very wealthy individuals and cash-rich corporations who have chosen to put money they could never hope to spend off shore instead of contributing a portion of it to the state are going to find that they no longer have any say in how things develop. It is, in other words, in their own interests to start embracing a greater degree of wealth distribution now.
  • eekeek Posts: 1,884
    eristdoof said:


    In the AfD heartlands, rural areas not so far from a cities, there are not many job vacancies, it is hard to move on up the ladder and those who want to move to the city. Those who are visibly well off usually types who commute to Dresden in their BMWs and suits, which is no role model for the struggling. Public transport (although better than in rural England) makes life without a car difficult. The unemployed just stay at home (there is nothing for them to do in town) and the people who do have jobs fear losing it in the next 12 months with little chance of finding a new one. Essentially these problems have nothing to do with immigration, but somehow the nationalist's anti-immigration politics is popular in these areas.


    Is it not as simple as that there isn't enough jobs to go round so why should we be allowing people to come and take the jobs that exist....

    Yes I know the jobs aren't actually there locally but rationality is hardly high on most people's political agendas...
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 952
    edited October 11

    Excellent piece by Meeks, the referendum showed how much out of touch MPs, especially the then PM are. May reinforces the perception with her blandness, people want opinions, conviction, not fence sitting.

    On a more positive note enjoy this:

    PS I challenge any Remainers to refute the Moggster's points

    http://yourbrexit.co.uk/news/watch-jacob-rees-mogg-destroys-the-custom-union-argument-in-just-90-seconds/

    It's a good point, and one I remember hearing Barbara Castle make during the 1975 referendum campaign. I was too young to vote at the time but it certainly put me off the Common Market at the time. Of course it worked a lot better coming from her as she sounded like someone who actually cared rather than someone making a debating point.

    The counterargument is that if you believe that free trade ultimately benefits everyone then you should work to lower them wherever they are. You can do that much more effectively inside the EU than you can outside it. And if producer countries want to help themselves forming their own EU like blocks like ASEAN that can negotiate from a strong position is a better strategy rather than relying on the social conscience of the likes of Rees Mogg.

    But this is all minor stuff in the Brexit debate. UKIP wasn't a response to people's desire for better development in third world countries.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,107
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    I think Alistair is right about austerity. Pay awards came out in my school a couple of weeks ago. Let's just say there was a lot of discontent about the reluctance to move people up the main scale. And there are an awful lot of public sector workers in the same boat.

    However, I would also add I think the killer punch in education is not salaries but class sizes. Blair had the right idea to try and cut them, although he never really made it work, but they are now rising more or less inexorably due to massively increased demand while only limited increases in funding are available, and the concomitant workload is straining things to absolute snapping point.

    I'm lucky personally this year as 75% of my timetable is A level where the classes are small anyway, but I can foresee an extreme crisis in eighteen months.

    A situation which if anything is worse in many primary schools.
    The marking load alone for a class of 28 children can be crushing.
    Indeed yes. Four hours sleep a night for primary school teachers is rapidly becoming the norm. And then the government wonders why we have a 40% attrition rate among new teachers.

    But it is also incredibly difficult to control and manage a class of 28. There are so many different things that could go wrong, and this when even the sheer effort of voice projection becomes exhausting.

    If we saw class sizes in the state sector cut to 20, then things would change radically. For a start, that would kill private education stone dead far more effectively and far less disastrously than Corbyn's muddled and ill-informed tax policies. But no politician will dare do it because of the vast costs involved.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 6,992
    'All around the world political loyalties are breaking down'

    ... Except in Britain, which in 2017 saw the traditional two party system stronger than it has been in 40 years
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 14,304
    ydoethur said:

    I think Alistair is right about austerity. Pay awards came out in my school a couple of weeks ago. Let's just say there was a lot of discontent about the reluctance to move people up the main scale. And there are an awful lot of public sector workers in the same boat.

    However, I would also add I think the killer punch in education is not salaries but class sizes. Blair had the right idea to try and cut them, although he never really made it work, but they are now rising more or less inexorably due to massively increased demand while only limited increases in funding are available, and the concomitant workload is straining things to absolute snapping point.

    I'm lucky personally this year as 75% of my timetable is A level where the classes are small anyway, but I can foresee an extreme crisis in eighteen months.

    I remember a couple of decades back, when class sizes were going to reduce because of the falling birthrate.

    And then Labour let in millions of extra people into the UK. Mostly young, it was obvious that they were going to ultimately cause stresses on education - as well as housing and obstetrics. Yet they made no provision for this. Because it would have been too embarrassing to admit that their tens of thousands estimate was off by a couple of orders of magnitude.

    Now Labour can happily snipe from the sidelines about the problems they caused - but for which they will take sod all responsibility.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 12,844
    Jonathan said:

    'All around the world political loyalties are breaking down'

    ... Except in Britain, which in 2017 saw the traditional two party system stronger than it has been in 40 years

    Though to be fair I wonder how much real 'loyalty' there was amongst those voters. If the psephologists are right then a large part of the success Corbyn enjoyed in this year's GE was down to voters moving back to Labour after an away day to UKIP.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 10,673
    kyf_100 said:

    TOPPING said:

    On yesterday's topic about Remainers deserting the Cons. Perhaps the plan hard been to give the Cons a shock and then come back with the party suitably chastened.

    Problem for the Cons is that they have since done nothing to attract back those voters and quite a lot to repel them further.

    This is indeed true, but I find it hard to believe many of them will vote Labour next time round (or, for that matter, Lib Dem). In 2017 a Con majority seemed nailed on. Now with the very real prospect of a Labour government will turkeys really vote for Christmas?

    Clearly a lot of it will depend on who leads the Conservatives into the next election, and also whether they are able to demonstrate contrition for some of their more egregious mistakes.
    Yes. A less toxic leadership team would help but will we get one?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 12,011

    ydoethur said:

    I think Alistair is right about austerity. Pay awards came out in my school a couple of weeks ago. Let's just say there was a lot of discontent about the reluctance to move people up the main scale. And there are an awful lot of public sector workers in the same boat.

    However, I would also add I think the killer punch in education is not salaries but class sizes. Blair had the right idea to try and cut them, although he never really made it work, but they are now rising more or less inexorably due to massively increased demand while only limited increases in funding are available, and the concomitant workload is straining things to absolute snapping point.

    I'm lucky personally this year as 75% of my timetable is A level where the classes are small anyway, but I can foresee an extreme crisis in eighteen months.

    I remember a couple of decades back, when class sizes were going to reduce because of the falling birthrate.

    And then Labour let in millions of extra people into the UK. Mostly young, it was obvious that they were going to ultimately cause stresses on education - as well as housing and obstetrics. Yet they made no provision for this. Because it would have been too embarrassing to admit that their tens of thousands estimate was off by a couple of orders of magnitude.

    Now Labour can happily snipe from the sidelines about the problems they caused - but for which they will take sod all responsibility.
    Aren't there now though, 1000s of teaching-assistants? A post that did not even exist when I was at school.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 14,678

    But this is all minor stuff in the Brexit debate. UKIP wasn't a response to people's desire for better development in third world countries.

    No, but the topic did give rise to the most egregious lies of the whole campaign. The fact is that the EU gives tariff and quota free access to its market to all least developed countries, and most of the rest either have zero or preferential tariffs. The usual rhetorical trick is to quote the highest WTO tariff and imply that this applies universally.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 16,549
    I've never quite got why Alastair finds the citizens of nowhere meme so irritating but it clearly rankles. If only Goodhart had used the phrase citizens of the world instead.

    He was describing a class of people who are capable and have been willing to move and go out into the world to make a success of themselves and thus, in an Adam Smith way, a success of the country as well. Once you have demonstrated that willingness to change and start again the same mind set makes you much more open to other change as well. Those who are more hesitant about change and less willing to move are inevitably more focussed on more parochial matters.

    This by no means implies that the citizens of somewhere are less important or less valuable or have less fulfilling lives. But I think Alastair misses that it is them that Goodhart is trying to explain and give value to. The citizens of the world have an obvious value and don't need a justification.

    There was a time when many ambitious Scots went abroad or even just to England to make something of themselves and achieve success or riches. It is the decline of that ambition and drive that is a major part of Scotland's problems right now.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 7,085
    ydoethur said:

    I think Alistair is right about austerity. Pay awards came out in my school a couple of weeks ago. Let's just say there was a lot of discontent about the reluctance to move people up the main scale. And there are an awful lot of public sector workers in the same boat.

    However, I would also add I think the killer punch in education is not salaries but class sizes. Blair had the right idea to try and cut them, although he never really made it work, but they are now rising more or less inexorably due to massively increased demand while only limited increases in funding are available, and the concomitant workload is straining things to absolute snapping point.

    I'm lucky personally this year as 75% of my timetable is A level where the classes are small anyway, but I can foresee an extreme crisis in eighteen months.

    Two points on this:

    1) Is it not the case that public sector workers voted Remain? I suppose they probably voted for Jezza.

    2) On class sizes, how big are you talking? There were 38 in my year 11 maths class (2002-03).
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 24,104
    rcs1000 said:

    As an aside, the Catalans seem to have taken a step back from UDI. the question is whether Madrid seeks compromise by proposing greater autonomy, or piles on the pressure.

    The Catalans are doing exactly the right thing. They know that for 10 years the PP, first in opposition and then in government, has always taken decisions which further the cause of separatism - from helping to strike down the increased autonomy agreed with PSOE to the violence on 1st October - and they can be pretty sure that given a bit of time PP will do the same again. What the separatists need now, more than anything, is more sympathy at governmental level internationally. They are taking a symbolic step back so that PP can respond in a way that will garner that support.

    Of course, a wise government in Madrid would look at the extreme fragility of the independence coalition in Catalonia and leave it to fall apart as the impossibility of actually implementing UDI becomes clear. But over the years, one thing that the PP has shown is that it has no solution to the Catalan question that does not involve making the separatists stronger.

    There is no Spanish or Catalan word for compromise. With nationalists in charge in Madrid and Barcelona that pretty much guarantees this thing is set to run and run. And one day, when Catalonia is independent, every village, town and city will have statues erected of Mariano Rajoy, the man who made it all possible.

  • RogerRoger Posts: 8,160

    Roger said:

    Nigelb said:

    There's a very good Danny Finklestein article in today's Times calling for the resignation of the Chief Constable of Wiltshire.

    Seems a bit random.....
    Presumably to do with this:

    Thanks...I heard Heath's Godson who I think is a barrister talk about it the other day. It does sound like the most appalling character assassination from a police force with too much time on their hands and a not very bright chief constable trying to make a name for himself
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 22,416

    ydoethur said:

    I think Alistair is right about austerity. Pay awards came out in my school a couple of weeks ago. Let's just say there was a lot of discontent about the reluctance to move people up the main scale. And there are an awful lot of public sector workers in the same boat.

    However, I would also add I think the killer punch in education is not salaries but class sizes. Blair had the right idea to try and cut them, although he never really made it work, but they are now rising more or less inexorably due to massively increased demand while only limited increases in funding are available, and the concomitant workload is straining things to absolute snapping point.

    I'm lucky personally this year as 75% of my timetable is A level where the classes are small anyway, but I can foresee an extreme crisis in eighteen months.

    I remember a couple of decades back, when class sizes were going to reduce because of the falling birthrate.

    And then Labour let in millions of extra people into the UK. Mostly young, it was obvious that they were going to ultimately cause stresses on education - as well as housing and obstetrics. Yet they made no provision for this. Because it would have been too embarrassing to admit that their tens of thousands estimate was off by a couple of orders of magnitude.

    Now Labour can happily snipe from the sidelines about the problems they caused - but for which they will take sod all responsibility.
    The population pyramid can be seen here for 2039:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationprojections/bulletins/nationalpopulationprojections/2015-10-29#changing-age-structure

    The growth is mostly in the elderly, the rise in fertility rate more a return to a population replacement rate after the trough fertility rate at the millenium.

    Either that stable working age population needs to increase its productivity, or the elderly* need to be less greedy.

    *DOI I will be one of those elderly in 2039!
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 2,539

    ydoethur said:

    I think Alistair is right about austerity. Pay awards came out in my school a couple of weeks ago. Let's just say there was a lot of discontent about the reluctance to move people up the main scale. And there are an awful lot of public sector workers in the same boat.

    However, I would also add I think the killer punch in education is not salaries but class sizes. Blair had the right idea to try and cut them, although he never really made it work, but they are now rising more or less inexorably due to massively increased demand while only limited increases in funding are available, and the concomitant workload is straining things to absolute snapping point.

    I'm lucky personally this year as 75% of my timetable is A level where the classes are small anyway, but I can foresee an extreme crisis in eighteen months.

    I remember a couple of decades back, when class sizes were going to reduce because of the falling birthrate.

    And then Labour let in millions of extra people into the UK. Mostly young, it was obvious that they were going to ultimately cause stresses on education - as well as housing and obstetrics. Yet they made no provision for this. Because it would have been too embarrassing to admit that their tens of thousands estimate was off by a couple of orders of magnitude.

    Now Labour can happily snipe from the sidelines about the problems they caused - but for which they will take sod all responsibility.
    Blair invested significantly to cut class sizes - indeed some would say he over-prioritised this.
    I believe the evidence says that below 30 or so - smaller class sizes don't make much difference to learning outcomes.

    In any case - Labour in 2017 wanted to spend 6% more per pupil, while the Tories wanted to spend 3% less.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 132
    I think Alastair is trying to simplify a complex set of political movements that varies by country and even within a country are coalitions of voters with lots of different motivations. What has caused AfD is different to what caused Trump and what caused Brexit. To pick one fault with the logic, if austerity was truly driving these movements, why would it be strongest among the elderly who were protected from it in the UK? If there is a common thread, it is that many people feel, rightly or wrongly, that power has moved away from them and people like them.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 17,313
    Nigelb said:

    An excellent header.
    It's not entirely puzzling, but does not speak well of our politics, that the extent of the wealth destruction of the crash is so little appreciated.

    I haven't read the header yet, but my belief is that a lot of the "wealth" was never real. That's why we have such a large structural deficit - Briwn pumped up spending believing that the City taxes were the "new normal".

    They were a mirage - but spending has proved hard to cut.

    Similarly that would show up in the gross asset and income figures
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 132
    DavidL said:

    I've never quite got why Alastair finds the citizens of nowhere meme so irritating but it clearly rankles. If only Goodhart had used the phrase citizens of the world instead.

    He was describing a class of people who are capable and have been willing to move and go out into the world to make a success of themselves and thus, in an Adam Smith way, a success of the country as well. Once you have demonstrated that willingness to change and start again the same mind set makes you much more open to other change as well. Those who are more hesitant about change and less willing to move are inevitably more focussed on more parochial matters.

    This by no means implies that the citizens of somewhere are less important or less valuable or have less fulfilling lives. But I think Alastair misses that it is them that Goodhart is trying to explain and give value to. The citizens of the world have an obvious value and don't need a justification.

    There was a time when many ambitious Scots went abroad or even just to England to make something of themselves and achieve success or riches. It is the decline of that ambition and drive that is a major part of Scotland's problems right now.

    Citizens of Nowhere Vs Citizens or Somewhere isn't a clear divide but a spectrum. Very few people actually fit the true no affiliation to any country image, but there are many more who head towards that direction. Many more of us are in the middle
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 12,844

    That is a very fine article, Mr Meeks - thank-you.

    As I have said on here few times before: once a majority of people feel they have no stake in the society in which they live that society becomes unsustainable. We are not at that point yet, but we are getting there. When the tipping point comes, the very wealthy individuals and cash-rich corporations who have chosen to put money they could never hope to spend off shore instead of contributing a portion of it to the state are going to find that they no longer have any say in how things develop. It is, in other words, in their own interests to start embracing a greater degree of wealth distribution now.

    Surely at that point - and I am not saying this is a good thing - those companies just leave and move to another part of the world. It is something I am not sure that either party has been able to grasp yet properly. In a globalised world they can no longer use companies as cash cows to support unrealistic state spending.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,035
    DavidL said:

    I've never quite got why Alastair finds the citizens of nowhere meme so irritating but it clearly rankles. If only Goodhart had used the phrase citizens of the world instead.

    He was describing a class of people who are capable and have been willing to move and go out into the world to make a success of themselves and thus, in an Adam Smith way, a success of the country as well. Once you have demonstrated that willingness to change and start again the same mind set makes you much more open to other change as well. Those who are more hesitant about change and less willing to move are inevitably more focussed on more parochial matters.

    This by no means implies that the citizens of somewhere are less important or less valuable or have less fulfilling lives. But I think Alastair misses that it is them that Goodhart is trying to explain and give value to. The citizens of the world have an obvious value and don't need a justification.

    There was a time when many ambitious Scots went abroad or even just to England to make something of themselves and achieve success or riches. It is the decline of that ambition and drive that is a major part of Scotland's problems right now.

    David, you are well wrong , it is fact that people are realising they should not have to leave to have opportunities, that Scotland should not just be a shooting range for rich twats. We should not have to leave our families due to fact that we are ran badly from London. If only we had had enough Scots with a backbone in 2014.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 14,304
    "Exhibit A is the national debt, which continues to grow rapidly."

    In absolute terms, you have a point.

    But Exhibit B - some facts. As a % of GDP, the National Debt is lower than it has been through most of the past 300 years.

    But that masks the reasons the National Debt rose: war. The Napoleonic Wars, then the two World Wars massively spiked National Debt. The worry about the current rise in the National Debt is that it was not linked to war, but incompetence in managing the banking system. Bailing out the banks was like having a very bloody medium-sized war, in historical terms.

    A war we weren't obliged to fight to protect our way of life being over-run, our democratic institutions being toppled. Just a war to stop the cash-machines running dry.

    The real worry is that it is a war we may yet have to return to fight again.

    https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_debt_chart.html
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 24,104

    That is a very fine article, Mr Meeks - thank-you.

    As I have said on here few times before: once a majority of people feel they have no stake in the society in which they live that society becomes unsustainable. We are not at that point yet, but we are getting there. When the tipping point comes, the very wealthy individuals and cash-rich corporations who have chosen to put money they could never hope to spend off shore instead of contributing a portion of it to the state are going to find that they no longer have any say in how things develop. It is, in other words, in their own interests to start embracing a greater degree of wealth distribution now.

    Surely at that point - and I am not saying this is a good thing - those companies just leave and move to another part of the world. It is something I am not sure that either party has been able to grasp yet properly. In a globalised world they can no longer use companies as cash cows to support unrealistic state spending.

    If it were a one country phenomenon that may well be the case. I was taking Alastair's article to be a broader critique covering a much greater geography than the UK. Companies can keep running, but only to an extent. They also need to keep on selling. If they all end up in Singapore hiding from tax authorities, where is their market? Likewise, the extremely wealthy can all move to somewhere like Panama. But is it really worth it if they can only spend their money in Panama?

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 26,101

    Roger said:

    Nigelb said:

    There's a very good Danny Finklestein article in today's Times calling for the resignation of the Chief Constable of Wiltshire.

    Seems a bit random.....
    Presumably to do with this:

    It's been fundamentally flawed by the investigative approach. I don't know if mike veale should resign but it has been classic refusal to admit failings and face saving innuendo, officially not making accusations but making it seem the thin conclusion it reached is significant.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 31,819
    @Anna_Soubry: 1/2 Hugely heartened by PM’s refusal to back #Leave. We’ve respected #EUReferendum result as promised

    @Anna_Soubry: 2/2 Brexit ideologists should do the same. On June 8 people rejected their no deal #HardBrexit.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 24,104
    It's also the case that conspicuous wealth and excess is much more visible than it has ever been before thanks to the internet and 24 hour TV. People are seeing what they do not have all the time in a way that has never been the case previously.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 16,549
    On austerity there is an argument that the sticking plaster analogy is applicable. Rather than having the short, sharp tug and pain of a fast reset (with the substantial additional cut in public employment, public sector wage cuts, increased unemployment and higher taxes that that would have entailed) we have resorted to the inch by painful inch of gradual deficit reduction and a (very) gradual rebalancing of our economy.

    The problem with this latter approach is our boredom threshold and I certainly agree with Alastair that we, as a country, have got very bored with the discomfort that gradual rebalancing causes. The fact that the job is a long way from finished hardly helps because we see a finishing line slipping ever further beyond the horizon. Those who like to pretend that spending £50bn+ more than we are willing to pay in taxes is not a problem are getting a hearing.
    But the fact is that we are still living beyond our means both in terms of public spending and in terms of our trade deficit. These 2 are linked because it is the extra demand that this excess government spending creates that sucks in some of the imports. But they are also linked in a more negative way. Both ensure that our children are going to be poorer than us living in a rented economy where much of the profit earned goes in interest payments and dividends to the foreign owners of our debt and businesses.

    The government can be rightly proud that its inch by inch approach has helped generate record employment and relatively high growth compared with those countries that pulled the plaster off more quickly. But there is always a price to be paid and that is likely to be lower growth than those who rebalanced quicker going forward and longer term problems with debt and foreign ownership.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 26,101

    rcs1000 said:

    As an aside, the Catalans seem to have taken a step back from UDI. the question is whether Madrid seeks compromise by proposing greater autonomy, or piles on the pressure.

    The Catalans are doing exactly the right thing. They know that for 10 years the PP, first in opposition and then in government, has always taken decisions which further the cause of separatism - from helping to strike down the increased autonomy agreed with PSOE to the violence on 1st October - and they can be pretty sure that given a bit of time PP will do the same again. What the separatists need now, more than anything, is more sympathy at governmental level internationally. They are taking a symbolic step back so that PP can respond in a way that will garner that support.

    Of course, a wise government in Madrid would look at the extreme fragility of the independence coalition in Catalonia and leave it to fall apart as the impossibility of actually implementing UDI becomes clear. But over the years, one thing that the PP has shown is that it has no solution to the Catalan question that does not involve making the separatists stronger.

    There is no Spanish or Catalan word for compromise. With nationalists in charge in Madrid and Barcelona that pretty much guarantees this thing is set to run and run. And one day, when Catalonia is independent, every village, town and city will have statues erected of Mariano Rajoy, the man who made it all possible.

    Stong words. Not expecting the PP to deescalate matters then.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 22,416
    DavidL said:

    I've never quite got why Alastair finds the citizens of nowhere meme so irritating but it clearly rankles. If only Goodhart had used the phrase citizens of the world instead.

    He was describing a class of people who are capable and have been willing to move and go out into the world to make a success of themselves and thus, in an Adam Smith way, a success of the country as well. Once you have demonstrated that willingness to change and start again the same mind set makes you much more open to other change as well. Those who are more hesitant about change and less willing to move are inevitably more focussed on more parochial matters.

    This by no means implies that the citizens of somewhere are less important or less valuable or have less fulfilling lives. But I think Alastair misses that it is them that Goodhart is trying to explain and give value to. The citizens of the world have an obvious value and don't need a justification.

    There was a time when many ambitious Scots went abroad or even just to England to make something of themselves and achieve success or riches. It is the decline of that ambition and drive that is a major part of Scotland's problems right now.

    Survey of Britons do show a large number keen to emigrate. 75% in this 2010 survey:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1275878/Three-quarters-Britons-want-emigrate-Australia-popular-destination.html

    Many seem keen on a softer life rather than seeking their fortune though.

    I recall a conversation 25 years ago with a British junior surgeon who had gone to New Zealand "Its still a rat race here, but the other rats are a lot slower!"
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 582
    edited October 11

    That is a very fine article, Mr Meeks - thank-you.

    As I have said on here few times before: once a majority of people feel they have no stake in the society in which they live that society becomes unsustainable. We are not at that point yet, but we are getting there. When the tipping point comes, the very wealthy individuals and cash-rich corporations who have chosen to put money they could never hope to spend off shore instead of contributing a portion of it to the state are going to find that they no longer have any say in how things develop. It is, in other words, in their own interests to start embracing a greater degree of wealth distribution now.

    I remember this being the main publicly aired theme of Davos 5 or 6 years ago. The great and good were supposedly in fear of exactly such a revolution and redistribution was part of the promoted answer. Such thinking has only trickled down slowly into policy though.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,038
    edited October 11

    ydoethur said:

    I think Alistair is right about austerity. Pay awards came out in my school a couple of weeks ago. Let's just say there was a lot of discontent about the reluctance to move people up the main scale. And there are an awful lot of public sector workers in the same boat.

    However, I would also add I think the killer punch in education is not salaries but class sizes. Blair had the right idea to try and cut them, although he never really made it work, but they are now rising more or less inexorably due to massively increased demand while only limited increases in funding are available, and the concomitant workload is straining things to absolute snapping point.

    I'm lucky personally this year as 75% of my timetable is A level where the classes are small anyway, but I can foresee an extreme crisis in eighteen months.

    I remember a couple of decades back, when class sizes were going to reduce because of the falling birthrate.

    And then Labour let in millions of extra people into the UK. Mostly young, it was obvious that they were going to ultimately cause stresses on education - as well as housing and obstetrics. Yet they made no provision for this. Because it would have been too embarrassing to admit that their tens of thousands estimate was off by a couple of orders of magnitude.

    Now Labour can happily snipe from the sidelines about the problems they caused - but for which they will take sod all responsibility.
    The population pyramid can be seen here for 2039:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationprojections/bulletins/nationalpopulationprojections/2015-10-29#changing-age-structure

    The growth is mostly in the elderly, the rise in fertility rate more a return to a population replacement rate after the trough fertility rate at the millenium.

    Either that stable working age population needs to increase its productivity, or the elderly* need to be less greedy.

    *DOI I will be one of those elderly in 2039!
    Thanks for that; going to a U3a Discussion Group on over-population tomorrow. Always useful, if tedious, to be able to quote statistics,
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 14,304
    rkrkrk said:

    ydoethur said:

    I think Alistair is right about austerity. Pay awards came out in my school a couple of weeks ago. Let's just say there was a lot of discontent about the reluctance to move people up the main scale. And there are an awful lot of public sector workers in the same boat.

    However, I would also add I think the killer punch in education is not salaries but class sizes. Blair had the right idea to try and cut them, although he never really made it work, but they are now rising more or less inexorably due to massively increased demand while only limited increases in funding are available, and the concomitant workload is straining things to absolute snapping point.

    I'm lucky personally this year as 75% of my timetable is A level where the classes are small anyway, but I can foresee an extreme crisis in eighteen months.

    I remember a couple of decades back, when class sizes were going to reduce because of the falling birthrate.

    And then Labour let in millions of extra people into the UK. Mostly young, it was obvious that they were going to ultimately cause stresses on education - as well as housing and obstetrics. Yet they made no provision for this. Because it would have been too embarrassing to admit that their tens of thousands estimate was off by a couple of orders of magnitude.

    Now Labour can happily snipe from the sidelines about the problems they caused - but for which they will take sod all responsibility.
    Blair invested significantly to cut class sizes - indeed some would say he over-prioritised this.
    I believe the evidence says that below 30 or so - smaller class sizes don't make much difference to learning outcomes.

    In any case - Labour in 2017 wanted to spend 6% more per pupil, while the Tories wanted to spend 3% less.
    Blair didn't "invest", he left the future with a massive debt in the shape of PFI.

    And the Tories didn't "want" to spend 3% less. It is what they believe the requirements of the national economy dictates. Labour may have "wanted" to spend 6% more, but their reckless economic experiment - their New Venezuela - would have been much more likely to result in far greater cuts than 3%.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 17,313
    DavidL said:

    I've never quite got why Alastair finds the citizens of nowhere meme so irritating but it clearly rankles. If only Goodhart had used the phrase citizens of the world instead.

    He was describing a class of people who are capable and have been willing to move and go out into the world to make a success of themselves and thus, in an Adam Smith way, a success of the country as well. Once you have demonstrated that willingness to change and start again the same mind set makes you much more open to other change as well. Those who are more hesitant about change and less willing to move are inevitably more focussed on more parochial matters.

    This by no means implies that the citizens of somewhere are less important or less valuable or have less fulfilling lives. But I think Alastair misses that it is them that Goodhart is trying to explain and give value to. The citizens of the world have an obvious value and don't need a justification.

    There was a time when many ambitious Scots went abroad or even just to England to make something of themselves and achieve success or riches. It is the decline of that ambition and drive that is a major part of Scotland's problems right now.

    It also refers to those who leave their home community to move to tax havens. That includes Brits who move to Monaco or Jersey and oligarchs who come to London.

    Companies need to remember they have stakeholders not just shareholders; business owners that they owe part of their success to the community and environment in which they operate
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 26,101
    Jonathan said:

    'All around the world political loyalties are breaking down'

    ... Except in Britain, which in 2017 saw the traditional two party system stronger than it has been in 40 years

    Indeed. Labour and the tories are looking good. And although the good labour campaign helped, it seems noteworthy that despite appealing to the 48% and a Labour party which has been very divided in public, the lds made no progress in votes, their preferred measure as PR supporters. The two party system seemed up for breaking but no.

    OT I've met the first genuine Trump fan i know in Britain. Formet police officer, They like his style.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 2,539

    That is a very fine article, Mr Meeks - thank-you.

    As I have said on here few times before: once a majority of people feel they have no stake in the society in which they live that society becomes unsustainable. We are not at that point yet, but we are getting there. When the tipping point comes, the very wealthy individuals and cash-rich corporations who have chosen to put money they could never hope to spend off shore instead of contributing a portion of it to the state are going to find that they no longer have any say in how things develop. It is, in other words, in their own interests to start embracing a greater degree of wealth distribution now.

    Surely at that point - and I am not saying this is a good thing - those companies just leave and move to another part of the world. It is something I am not sure that either party has been able to grasp yet properly. In a globalised world they can no longer use companies as cash cows to support unrealistic state spending.

    On the contrary - neither party has really grasped that we need very decisive action to level the playing field and stop multinational businesses of nowhere (to coin a phrase) from avoiding paying taxes. These businesses need our markets - but for some reason we have allowed loopholes that let them get away with it.

    This may require coordinated action - but even the UK on its own might be big enough to shake things up. Once one country acts on this - others will follow. The UK also needs to sort its own house out on tax havens.

    Stories like this show how ridiculous the situation is at present:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crickhowell-welsh-town-moves-offshore-to-avoid-tax-on-local-business-a6728971.html
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 6,992

    It's also the case that conspicuous wealth and excess is much more visible than it has ever been before thanks to the internet and 24 hour TV. People are seeing what they do not have all the time in a way that has never been the case previously.

    There is something in this, but it's not quite the whole story. Dallas and Dynasty showed wealth, but it was a remote fiction.

    Today shows like X-Factor and the Apprentice sell the lie that that we can all be famous millionaires. All we have to do is work hard and let your innate talent shine. Sadly that's not true. You also need luck. You need money. You need connections.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 16,549
    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    David, you are well wrong , it is fact that people are realising they should not have to leave to have opportunities, that Scotland should not just be a shooting range for rich twats. We should not have to leave our families due to fact that we are ran badly from London. If only we had had enough Scots with a backbone in 2014.
    When ambitious Dundonians went to India and what is now Bangladesh to build the jute trade they came back and built what was then the largest factories in the world in Dundee to process it. When ambitious Clydesiders went into international trade they helped to create a huge shipping industry to provide the vessels for that trade. When ambitious bankers from Edinburgh....damn, that was going quite well until then.

    Anyway, I am not suggesting that these Scots had to leave permanently but that the whole country gained from their entrepreneurial spirit. Scotland has a major problem with the lack of such a spirit today. The public sector is far too large and offers too many cosy billets to make the risks worth running. We do not have a viable economy as a result which means we can thank the good sense of those who recognised that in 2014.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 24,104
    kle4 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    As an aside, the Catalans seem to have taken a step back from UDI. the question is whether Madrid seeks compromise by proposing greater autonomy, or piles on the pressure.

    The Catalans are doing exactly the right thing. They know that for 10 years the PP, first in opposition and then in government, has always taken decisions which further the cause of separatism - from helping to strike down the increased autonomy agreed with PSOE to the violence on 1st October - and they can be pretty sure that given a bit of time PP will do the same again. What the separatists need now, more than anything, is more sympathy at governmental level internationally. They are taking a symbolic step back so that PP can respond in a way that will garner that support.

    Of course, a wise government in Madrid would look at the extreme fragility of the independence coalition in Catalonia and leave it to fall apart as the impossibility of actually implementing UDI becomes clear. But over the years, one thing that the PP has shown is that it has no solution to the Catalan question that does not involve making the separatists stronger.

    There is no Spanish or Catalan word for compromise. With nationalists in charge in Madrid and Barcelona that pretty much guarantees this thing is set to run and run. And one day, when Catalonia is independent, every village, town and city will have statues erected of Mariano Rajoy, the man who made it all possible.

    Stong words. Not expecting the PP to deescalate matters then.

    I'm expecting PP to do exactly what PP always does - play straight into the separatists' hands. I would absolutely love to be proved wrong. But I do not think they are capable of dealing with this because of their own uncompromising Spanish nationalism which, of course, caused the whole problem in the first place. This article, originally published in the Times last week, sums it up perfectly:

    http://catalanmonitor.com/2017/10/08/catalan-independence-arrogance-of-madrid-explains-this-chaos-john-carlin/

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 17,313
    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    I've never quite got why Alastair finds the citizens of nowhere meme so irritating but it clearly rankles. If only Goodhart had used the phrase citizens of the world instead.

    He was describing a class of people who are capable and have been willing to move and go out into the world to make a success of themselves and thus, in an Adam Smith way, a success of the country as well. Once you have demonstrated that willingness to change and start again the same mind set makes you much more open to other change as well. Those who are more hesitant about change and less willing to move are inevitably more focussed on more parochial matters.

    This by no means implies that the citizens of somewhere are less important or less valuable or have less fulfilling lives. But I think Alastair misses that it is them that Goodhart is trying to explain and give value to. The citizens of the world have an obvious value and don't need a justification.

    There was a time when many ambitious Scots went abroad or even just to England to make something of themselves and achieve success or riches. It is the decline of that ambition and drive that is a major part of Scotland's problems right now.

    David, you are well wrong , it is fact that people are realising they should not have to leave to have opportunities, that Scotland should not just be a shooting range for rich twats. We should not have to leave our families due to fact that we are ran badly from London. If only we had had enough Scots with a backbone in 2014.
    If it hadn't been for the Scots and the Irish, Britain wound never have had the Empire and London would have been a backwater in a medium sized economy

    So it's kinda all your fault :lol:
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 21,484
    Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    I've never quite got why Alastair finds the citizens of nowhere meme so irritating but it clearly rankles. If only Goodhart had used the phrase citizens of the world instead.

    He was describing a class of people who are capable and have been willing to move and go out into the world to make a success of themselves and thus, in an Adam Smith way, a success of the country as well. Once you have demonstrated that willingness to change and start again the same mind set makes you much more open to other change as well. Those who are more hesitant about change and less willing to move are inevitably more focussed on more parochial matters.

    This by no means implies that the citizens of somewhere are less important or less valuable or have less fulfilling lives. But I think Alastair misses that it is them that Goodhart is trying to explain and give value to. The citizens of the world have an obvious value and don't need a justification.

    There was a time when many ambitious Scots went abroad or even just to England to make something of themselves and achieve success or riches. It is the decline of that ambition and drive that is a major part of Scotland's problems right now.

    It also refers to those who leave their home community to move to tax havens. That includes Brits who move to Monaco or Jersey and oligarchs who come to London.

    Companies need to remember they have stakeholders not just shareholders; business owners that they owe part of their success to the community and environment in which they operate
    In my view, the phrase was a fair one and applied to both companies and individuals, but the trouble is it sounds much more personal when directed at the latter.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,002
    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    Nigelb said:

    There's a very good Danny Finklestein article in today's Times calling for the resignation of the Chief Constable of Wiltshire.

    Seems a bit random.....
    Presumably to do with this:

    Thanks...I heard Heath's Godson who I think is a barrister talk about it the other day. It does sound like the most appalling character assassination from a police force with too much time on their hands and a not very bright chief constable trying to make a name for himself
    The problem isn't with the initial investigation, which is entirely justifiable.

    It is that having turned up little or no solid evidence despite massive publicity and a couple of years work, they have sought to justify the effort by releasing a report which actually ignores exculpatory evidence they know about. And spun the evidentially meaningless "we would have interviewed him under caution" as an indication of guilt.

    That a Chief Constable should put PR over justice in this manner is utterly unacceptable.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 16,549

    DavidL said:

    I've never quite got why Alastair finds the citizens of nowhere meme so irritating but it clearly rankles. If only Goodhart had used the phrase citizens of the world instead.

    He was describing a class of people who are capable and have been willing to move and go out into the world to make a success of themselves and thus, in an Adam Smith way, a success of the country as well. Once you have demonstrated that willingness to change and start again the same mind set makes you much more open to other change as well. Those who are more hesitant about change and less willing to move are inevitably more focussed on more parochial matters.

    This by no means implies that the citizens of somewhere are less important or less valuable or have less fulfilling lives. But I think Alastair misses that it is them that Goodhart is trying to explain and give value to. The citizens of the world have an obvious value and don't need a justification.

    There was a time when many ambitious Scots went abroad or even just to England to make something of themselves and achieve success or riches. It is the decline of that ambition and drive that is a major part of Scotland's problems right now.

    Survey of Britons do show a large number keen to emigrate. 75% in this 2010 survey:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1275878/Three-quarters-Britons-want-emigrate-Australia-popular-destination.html

    Many seem keen on a softer life rather than seeking their fortune though.

    I recall a conversation 25 years ago with a British junior surgeon who had gone to New Zealand "Its still a rat race here, but the other rats are a lot slower!"
    My late father in law worked in New Zealand for 3 years on secondment in the early 90s. He absolutely loved it and would probably have emigrated had it not been for the pull of family. It was, on his description, a much more equal and egalitarian society. That was quite a long time ago though and NZ have been through significant changes since to allow themselves to compete. Those rats are perhaps picking up speed.
  • JonWCJonWC Posts: 98
    Not often I would agree with one of the AM polemics but I think there is a lot of truth in this.

    And why do we have to have austerity?

    Well a giant part of the reason is that we have free movement of goods and people with an area (the Eurozone which is most of the EU of course) where they have been pursuing demand crushing policies for a decade. Witness Germany's mad budget balancing law and what has happened right across the South, all to support the fiction that government debts are sustainable and going to be repaid.

    Hence we have had a giant influx of goods and people both of which are terrible for our current account. And following the laws of economics (the ones that are actually true) a corresponding budget deficit, which austerity is a very moderately successful attempt to control.

    If UK consumers magically favoured UK goods and businesses favoured UK labour to the extent that our current account deficit shrank to zero the spending taps could open the next day. I suspect that Corbyn has a better feel for this than a lot of commentators on the right.

    I guess you could say we have free movement of austerity and are importing quite a lot of it.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 12,011
    Wow. Both barrels:

    "...the failure of the Remain campaign to win the referendum lies firmly on the shoulders of one man – Cameron. His combination of arrogance, lack of attention to detail, his unwillingness to take on party colleagues for fear of provoking rifts following the vote, and ultimately his failure to understand the way in which the EU system functions, or for that matter the people who run it, were more weakening to the Remain campaign than the arguments promoted by the Leave side."

    https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2017/10/james-elles-oblivious-to-detail-arrogant-rash-fearful-of-conflict-how-cameron-wrecked-britains-european-dream.html
  • TonyETonyE Posts: 665
    The argument that immigration doesn't affect the jobs market I think is incorrect.

    The real effect has been on productivity. Why should I increase my productivity with a piece of machinery, when there is a surplus of cheap labour which can do the job and are easy to get rid of (much easier than a large or specific capital asset). And if that surplus keeps growing, then it's much easier to put off capital investment because wages for manual tasks are depressed. Productivity increases drive wage increases or consumer choice through price competition. We imported our 'competition' through China pricing, but that gain is now over.

    Also, the tax take from a minimum wage worker is fairly low. If that minimum wage worker requires housing but cannot afford it, the state will subsidise his low wage to pay his rent, put his children through school, look after his health, and pay his pension. The employer benefits, not the employee - as he no longer has to pay a wage commensurate to the cost of living - he does not have to raise his productivity to afford it.

    Minimum wage worker on a 40hr/p/w - £15,600
    Tax threshold £11,500
    Ni Threshold 8164.
    Total earnings related taxes = £1710

    Then the question has to be, how much do the services that this individual has access to cost? How much is lost to the exchequer because productivity investment has been diverted into low tax yield employment? How many more people are on minimum wage because of the ever increasing labour force?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 26,101
    Nigelb said:

    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    Nigelb said:

    There's a very good Danny Finklestein article in today's Times calling for the resignation of the Chief Constable of Wiltshire.

    Seems a bit random.....
    Presumably to do with this:

    Thanks...I heard Heath's Godson who I think is a barrister talk about it the other day. It does sound like the most appalling character assassination from a police force with too much time on their hands and a not very bright chief constable trying to make a name for himself
    The problem isn't with the initial investigation, which is entirely justifiable.

    It is that having turned up little or no solid evidence despite massive publicity and a couple of years work, they have sought to justify the effort by releasing a report which actually ignores exculpatory evidence they know about. And spun the evidentially meaningless "we would have interviewed him under caution" as an indication of guilt.

    That a Chief Constable should put PR over justice in this manner is utterly unacceptable.
    The conclusion seems entirely based on believing any account unless it us disproved, which is insane, and even then most were apparently not even worth wanting to talk to heath, we're that possible. The more I think about the approach the more flabbergasted I am at how it could ever have been defended, and the attempts to pretend criticism is over any instigation at all rather than size, scope and approach, is shameful spinning from a force desperate to smear heath to justify itself.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 2,539

    DavidL said:

    I've never quite got why Alastair finds the citizens of nowhere meme so irritating but it clearly rankles. If only Goodhart had used the phrase citizens of the world instead.

    He was describing a class of people who are capable and have been willing to move and go out into the world to make a success of themselves and thus, in an Adam Smith way, a success of the country as well. Once you have demonstrated that willingness to change and start again the same mind set makes you much more open to other change as well. Those who are more hesitant about change and less willing to move are inevitably more focussed on more parochial matters.

    This by no means implies that the citizens of somewhere are less important or less valuable or have less fulfilling lives. But I think Alastair misses that it is them that Goodhart is trying to explain and give value to. The citizens of the world have an obvious value and don't need a justification.

    There was a time when many ambitious Scots went abroad or even just to England to make something of themselves and achieve success or riches. It is the decline of that ambition and drive that is a major part of Scotland's problems right now.

    Survey of Britons do show a large number keen to emigrate. 75% in this 2010 survey:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1275878/Three-quarters-Britons-want-emigrate-Australia-popular-destination.html

    Many seem keen on a softer life rather than seeking their fortune though.

    I recall a conversation 25 years ago with a British junior surgeon who had gone to New Zealand "Its still a rat race here, but the other rats are a lot slower!"
    Have heard similar in other fields from friends who have made the jump.
    I know a few teachers who much prefer the work life balance there... they said much less pressure in terms of lesson plans and so on...

    Other corporate friends say their UK experience is very well respected in Aus, and that the UK is seen as being 'a bit ahead'/latest experience etc...
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 16,549
    Elliot said:

    DavidL said:

    I've never quite got why Alastair finds the citizens of nowhere meme so irritating but it clearly rankles. If only Goodhart had used the phrase citizens of the world instead.

    He was describing a class of people who are capable and have been willing to move and go out into the world to make a success of themselves and thus, in an Adam Smith way, a success of the country as well. Once you have demonstrated that willingness to change and start again the same mind set makes you much more open to other change as well. Those who are more hesitant about change and less willing to move are inevitably more focussed on more parochial matters.

    This by no means implies that the citizens of somewhere are less important or less valuable or have less fulfilling lives. But I think Alastair misses that it is them that Goodhart is trying to explain and give value to. The citizens of the world have an obvious value and don't need a justification.

    There was a time when many ambitious Scots went abroad or even just to England to make something of themselves and achieve success or riches. It is the decline of that ambition and drive that is a major part of Scotland's problems right now.

    Citizens of Nowhere Vs Citizens or Somewhere isn't a clear divide but a spectrum. Very few people actually fit the true no affiliation to any country image, but there are many more who head towards that direction. Many more of us are in the middle
    That's a very fair point.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 26,101

    Wow. Both barrels:

    "...the failure of the Remain campaign to win the referendum lies firmly on the shoulders of one man – Cameron. His combination of arrogance, lack of attention to detail, his unwillingness to take on party colleagues for fear of provoking rifts following the vote, and ultimately his failure to understand the way in which the EU system functions, or for that matter the people who run it, were more weakening to the Remain campaign than the arguments promoted by the Leave side."

    https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2017/10/james-elles-oblivious-to-detail-arrogant-rash-fearful-of-conflict-how-cameron-wrecked-britains-european-dream.html

    Not buying it. 48% of the country voted Remain, even if he did a poor job there were innumerable others putting the case to make up for it unless one thinks Cameron was a masterpiece conVincer.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 952

    But this is all minor stuff in the Brexit debate. UKIP wasn't a response to people's desire for better development in third world countries.

    No, but the topic did give rise to the most egregious lies of the whole campaign. The fact is that the EU gives tariff and quota free access to its market to all least developed countries, and most of the rest either have zero or preferential tariffs. The usual rhetorical trick is to quote the highest WTO tariff and imply that this applies universally.
    Thanks - I didn't know that. I know it doesn't justify the downsides, but Brexit has been very educational.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 2,539
    edited October 11
    TonyE said:

    The argument that immigration doesn't affect the jobs market I think is incorrect.

    The real effect has been on productivity. Why should I increase my productivity with a piece of machinery, when there is a surplus of cheap labour which can do the job and are easy to get rid of (much easier than a large or specific capital asset).

    Actually there is good evidence that immigration improves productivity.
  • DublinerDubliner Posts: 32
    TonyE said:

    The argument that immigration doesn't affect the jobs market I think is incorrect.

    The real effect has been on productivity. Why should I increase my productivity with a piece of machinery, when there is a surplus of cheap labour which can do the job and are easy to get rid of (much easier than a large or specific capital asset). And if that surplus keeps growing, then it's much easier to put off capital investment because wages for manual tasks are depressed. Productivity increases drive wage increases or consumer choice through price competition. We imported our 'competition' through China pricing, but that gain is now over.

    Also, the tax take from a minimum wage worker is fairly low. If that minimum wage worker requires housing but cannot afford it, the state will subsidise his low wage to pay his rent, put his children through school, look after his health, and pay his pension. The employer benefits, not the employee - as he no longer has to pay a wage commensurate to the cost of living - he does not have to raise his productivity to afford it.

    Minimum wage worker on a 40hr/p/w - £15,600
    Tax threshold £11,500
    Ni Threshold 8164.
    Total earnings related taxes = £1710

    Then the question has to be, how much do the services that this individual has access to cost? How much is lost to the exchequer because productivity investment has been diverted into low tax yield employment? How many more people are on minimum wage because of the ever increasing labour force?

    You should add say £1500 to the above for Vat and excise duties. If it's a single man, the state is ahead. A family with 3 children at school less so. Perhaps this has a bearing on the Government's attitude to family rights.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,002
    kle4 said:

    Wow. Both barrels:

    "...the failure of the Remain campaign to win the referendum lies firmly on the shoulders of one man – Cameron. His combination of arrogance, lack of attention to detail, his unwillingness to take on party colleagues for fear of provoking rifts following the vote, and ultimately his failure to understand the way in which the EU system functions, or for that matter the people who run it, were more weakening to the Remain campaign than the arguments promoted by the Leave side."

    https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2017/10/james-elles-oblivious-to-detail-arrogant-rash-fearful-of-conflict-how-cameron-wrecked-britains-european-dream.html

    Not buying it. 48% of the country voted Remain, even if he did a poor job there were innumerable others putting the case to make up for it unless one thinks Cameron was a masterpiece conVincer.
    Quite. That Cameron made mistakes, both tactical and strategic, is undeniable - the 'renegotiation' a case in point - but such utter condemnation smacks of 100% hindsight.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 12,844
    Scott_P said:

    @Anna_Soubry: 1/2 Hugely heartened by PM’s refusal to back #Leave. We’ve respected #EUReferendum result as promised

    @Anna_Soubry: 2/2 Brexit ideologists should do the same. On June 8 people rejected their no deal #HardBrexit.

    By voting overwhelmingly for parties backing a hard Brexit.

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 14,678
    As predicted, they're all being asked about a second referendum now.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 22,416
    TonyE said:

    The argument that immigration doesn't affect the jobs market I think is incorrect.

    The real effect has been on productivity. Why should I increase my productivity with a piece of machinery, when there is a surplus of cheap labour which can do the job and are easy to get rid of (much easier than a large or specific capital asset). And if that surplus keeps growing, then it's much easier to put off capital investment because wages for manual tasks are depressed. Productivity increases drive wage increases or consumer choice through price competition. We imported our 'competition' through China pricing, but that gain is now over.

    Also, the tax take from a minimum wage worker is fairly low. If that minimum wage worker requires housing but cannot afford it, the state will subsidise his low wage to pay his rent, put his children through school, look after his health, and pay his pension. The employer benefits, not the employee - as he no longer has to pay a wage commensurate to the cost of living - he does not have to raise his productivity to afford it.

    Minimum wage worker on a 40hr/p/w - £15,600
    Tax threshold £11,500
    Ni Threshold 8164.
    Total earnings related taxes = £1710

    Then the question has to be, how much do the services that this individual has access to cost? How much is lost to the exchequer because productivity investment has been diverted into low tax yield employment? How many more people are on minimum wage because of the ever increasing labour force?

    Have a look at the population figures that I posted. We do not have an ever increasing Labour force. That is projected to be more or less static even under current rates of immigration. Population growth over the next 2 decades is almost exclusively in the over 75's.

    This is not unique to the UK. Apart from Africa and the Middle East the population pyramid is more or less changing in the same direction worldwide.


  • TonyETonyE Posts: 665
    rkrkrk said:

    TonyE said:

    The argument that immigration doesn't affect the jobs market I think is incorrect.

    The real effect has been on productivity. Why should I increase my productivity with a piece of machinery, when there is a surplus of cheap labour which can do the job and are easy to get rid of (much easier than a large or specific capital asset). And if that surplus keeps growing, then it's much easier to put off capital investment because wages for manual tasks are depressed. Productivity increases drive wage increases or consumer choice through price competition. We imported our 'competition' through China pricing, but that gain is now over.

    Also, the tax take from a minimum wage worker is fairly low. If that minimum wage worker requires housing but cannot afford it, the state will subsidise his low wage to pay his rent, put his children through school, look after his health, and pay his pension. The employer benefits, not the employee - as he no longer has to pay a wage commensurate to the cost of living - he does not have to raise his productivity to afford it.

    Minimum wage worker on a 40hr/p/w - £15,600
    Tax threshold £11,500
    Ni Threshold 8164.
    Total earnings related taxes = £1710

    Then the question has to be, how much do the services that this individual has access to cost? How much is lost to the exchequer because productivity investment has been diverted into low tax yield employment? How many more people are on minimum wage because of the ever increasing labour force?

    Actually there is good evidence that immigration improves productivity.
    Only in the circumstance where the job can only be done manually - and the new worker is more productive or cheaper than the previous one.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 132
    DavidL said:

    Elliot said:

    DavidL said:

    I've never quite got why Alastair finds the citizens of nowhere meme so irritating but it clearly rankles. If only Goodhart had used the phrase citizens of the world instead.

    He was describing a class of people who are capable and have been willing to move and go out into the world to make a success of themselves and thus, in an Adam Smith way, a success of the country as well. Once you have demonstrated that willingness to change and start again the same mind set makes you much more open to other change as well. Those who are more hesitant about change and less willing to move are inevitably more focussed on more parochial matters.

    This by no means implies that the citizens of somewhere are less important or less valuable or have less fulfilling lives. But I think Alastair misses that it is them that Goodhart is trying to explain and give value to. The citizens of the world have an obvious value and don't need a justification.

    There was a time when many ambitious Scots went abroad or even just to England to make something of themselves and achieve success or riches. It is the decline of that ambition and drive that is a major part of Scotland's problems right now.

    Citizens of Nowhere Vs Citizens or Somewhere isn't a clear divide but a spectrum. Very few people actually fit the true no affiliation to any country image, but there are many more who head towards that direction. Many more of us are in the middle
    That's a very fair point.
    I often think of my mother when I hear the phrase. She fled Iran before the revolution and as an Iranian in the UK she much preferred the modernity here compared to the provincialism back there. But now she is very attached to her Yorkshire community and complains about immigration of hijabis as it reminds her of the religious trends and societal pressure to be devout in 1970s Tehran. Does that make her cosmopolitan or provincial? I don't know.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 22,416

    As predicted, they're all being asked about a second referendum now.

    It really does seem possible that we are going to do an extreme reverse ferret. Hold onto your seats!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 26,101

    As predicted, they're all being asked about a second referendum now.

    This is going to hurt them. It might force Boris and co to act as incompetence they can put up with fir now, but if the hardcore leavers think the pm is not a proper convert they will act.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 582

    Wow. Both barrels:

    "...the failure of the Remain campaign to win the referendum lies firmly on the shoulders of one man – Cameron. His combination of arrogance, lack of attention to detail, his unwillingness to take on party colleagues for fear of provoking rifts following the vote, and ultimately his failure to understand the way in which the EU system functions, or for that matter the people who run it, were more weakening to the Remain campaign than the arguments promoted by the Leave side."

    https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2017/10/james-elles-oblivious-to-detail-arrogant-rash-fearful-of-conflict-how-cameron-wrecked-britains-european-dream.html

    I know it was a tough sell, but the way Cameron completely abandoned his deal from the EU was also a factor. Blair 2002, with the same fundamental deal might have had it worded slightly differently (emergency brake?) and just gone into full sales mode. There was stuff in there that suggested supertanker Europe did and does find a lot of merit in our ideas and would alter course, but the idea that a few negotiation sessions would entirely remould the EU into Britain's fantasy trading bloc was always for the birds.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 26,101

    As predicted, they're all being asked about a second referendum now.

    It really does seem possible that we are going to do an extreme reverse ferret. Hold onto your seats!
    I'll believe it possible when labour switch to being the 'stay in' party, since it'll only happen if they win an election, after a tory split.
  • TonyETonyE Posts: 665

    TonyE said:

    The argument that immigration doesn't affect the jobs market I think is incorrect.

    The real effect has been on productivity. Why should I increase my productivity with a piece of machinery, when there is a surplus of cheap labour which can do the job and are easy to get rid of (much easier than a large or specific capital asset). And if that surplus keeps growing, then it's much easier to put off capital investment because wages for manual tasks are depressed. Productivity increases drive wage increases or consumer choice through price competition. We imported our 'competition' through China pricing, but that gain is now over.

    Also, the tax take from a minimum wage worker is fairly low. If that minimum wage worker requires housing but cannot afford it, the state will subsidise his low wage to pay his rent, put his children through school, look after his health, and pay his pension. The employer benefits, not the employee - as he no longer has to pay a wage commensurate to the cost of living - he does not have to raise his productivity to afford it.

    Minimum wage worker on a 40hr/p/w - £15,600
    Tax threshold £11,500
    Ni Threshold 8164.
    Total earnings related taxes = £1710

    Then the question has to be, how much do the services that this individual has access to cost? How much is lost to the exchequer because productivity investment has been diverted into low tax yield employment? How many more people are on minimum wage because of the ever increasing labour force?

    Have a look at the population figures that I posted. We do not have an ever increasing Labour force. That is projected to be more or less static even under current rates of immigration. Population growth over the next 2 decades is almost exclusively in the over 75's.

    This is not unique to the UK. Apart from Africa and the Middle East the population pyramid is more or less changing in the same direction worldwide.


    But is it not the case that we are at the end of a large period of workforce growth, say between 2000 and 2015? What about figures also for low skilled entrants to the UK jobs market?
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 8,096
    Some fine words above and below the line this morning. Credit to all.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 15,863
    Austerity might be painful - but we aren't balancing the books yet so we still don't know.

    Voters feeling sorry for themselves - well we lived high on the hog for too long running up huge debts. We get all we deserve.

This discussion has been closed.