|
|
Post by birdseye on Nov 17, 2024 16:00:29 GMT
I do wonder whether you are being ironic? Continued high immigration levels are most likely to lead to a Farage government at the next election. (cf president Trump) Not necessarily if, as I say, you go for enough growth as well. If you get enough growth, you may create enough jobs to support a greater number of immigrants, without driving down native wages. Would also have to invest more in things like housing and infrastructure, but that can also assist growth. Of the people concerned about immigration, only some are more bothered about having more foreign people here. Some are concerned more with economic effects, and if you deal with those economic effects, they may not be so bothered if we increase immigration. They might even be pleased at the economic gains. (Remember, some people already gain in their careers from immigration) If we can sustain immigration at the sort of rates we saw recently, maybe 3/4 of a million a year or more, we could have an economy closer to Japan in fifty years time, eventually rivalling Germany and France combined. Growth? In Starmers world you get companies to invest and produce growth by taking £20 Bn away from them. And you further help the cause by painting the UK as deadbeat and broken which of course encourages citizens to sit on their wallets. |
|
|
|
Post by graham on Nov 17, 2024 16:04:58 GMT
'Landslide to come' is nonsense! Trump now leads in the popular vote by just under 1.8%. To see what a landslide looks like, try looking at the results for 1984 - 1972 - 1964 - 1936 It was a landslide in the Electoral College which is the only thing that matters in American Presidential Elections. Keir Starmer won a landslide too on barely 1/3 of the vote. Not so. It is not a landslide when both candidates win more than 200 electoral college votes. 1984 was as landslide when Reagan received 525 votes with Mondale only getting 13. 1972 ws a landslide - Nixon 520 McGovern 17 1964 - Johnson 486 Goldwater 52 1936 FDR 523 Landon 8
1968 was not a landslide - Nixon 301 Humphrey 191 Wallace 46 1948 was not a landslide - Truman 303 Dewey 189 Thurmond 39 1960 was no landslide - Kennedy 303 Nixon 219.
|
|
|
|
Post by colin on Nov 17, 2024 16:05:40 GMT
Not necessarily if, as I say, you go for enough growth as well. If you get enough growth, you may create enough jobs to support a greater number of immigrants, without driving down native wages. Would also have to invest more in things like housing and infrastructure, but that can also assist growth. Of the people concerned about immigration, only some are more bothered about having more foreign people here. Some are concerned more with economic effects, and if you deal with those economic effects, they may not be so bothered if we increase immigration. They might even be pleased at the economic gains. (Remember, some people already gain in their careers from immigration) If we can sustain immigration at the sort of rates we saw recently, maybe 3/4 of a million a year or more, we could have an economy closer to Japan in fifty years time, eventually rivalling Germany and France combined. Growth? In Starmers world you get companies to invest and produce growth by taking £20 Bn away from them. And you further help the cause by painting the UK as deadbeat and broken which of course encourages citizens to sit on their wallets. After the pre-election smoked salmon circuit Business Friendly spiel, UKplc will now listen to what they do, not what they say they will do i think. |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,388
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Nov 17, 2024 16:11:43 GMT
Not necessarily if, as I say, you go for enough growth as well. If you get enough growth, you may create enough jobs to support a greater number of immigrants, without driving down native wages. Would also have to invest more in things like housing and infrastructure, but that can also assist growth. Of the people concerned about immigration, only some are more bothered about having more foreign people here. Some are concerned more with economic effects, and if you deal with those economic effects, they may not be so bothered if we increase immigration. They might even be pleased at the economic gains. (Remember, some people already gain in their careers from immigration) If we can sustain immigration at the sort of rates we saw recently, maybe 3/4 of a million a year or more, we could have an economy closer to Japan in fifty years time, eventually rivalling Germany and France combined. Growth? In Starmers world you get companies to invest and produce growth by taking £20 Bn away from them. And you further help the cause by painting the UK as deadbeat and broken which of course encourages citizens to sit on their wallets. I would have said in a previous life you were a Telegraph journalist...second thoughts you're far too balanced and positive about Starmer to be one 😀 |
|
|
|
Post by birdseye on Nov 17, 2024 16:17:06 GMT
colin - What's changed is the fact that hateful sentiments can now be broadcast widely. The hate element definition hasn't changed so much, other than good old fashioned common sense being codified into law. ('Jew haters' is an offensive and hateful expression. It's good that we formally recognise this). The big change has been the need to police statements that can now do tremendous harm because of the medium in which they are expressed, whereas in the old days such statements were not capable of this harm. So it's completely natural and common sense that the police are now more active in this area, merely because technology makes this a more visible arena, and action is required to prevent social and individual harm. What we are seeing is not the extension of Orwellian thought police, but instead societies reaction to hateful expression being broadcast in the open. It's a natural and necessary reaction to advances in technology. Yes, technology means that what society has decided to make unacceptable can now be much more widely broadcast though I see little evidence that this is actually happening. But what is now labelled unacceptable was not necessarily so labelled 10, 20 or even 50 years ago .People of different ages, having learned "the rules" in their youth, have a different personal list of "unacceptables". My attitude to racism, religion, homosexuality is not the same as that of my daughter or son and they in turn have views different to those of their own children. Thats where the thought police come in, enforcing on people of all ages a standard set of rules in much the same way that religious laws were enforced in the middle ages. No doubt many of the left on here will disagree. They wont do so in 20 years time when things that are acceptable today are no longer so. There are no 10 Commandments here. No absolutes fixed in stone. Instead we have the intellectual fashions of the time . |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,714
Member is Online
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 17, 2024 16:19:06 GMT
Not necessarily if, as I say, you go for enough growth as well. If you get enough growth, you may create enough jobs to support a greater number of immigrants, without driving down native wages. Would also have to invest more in things like housing and infrastructure, but that can also assist growth. Of the people concerned about immigration, only some are more bothered about having more foreign people here. Some are concerned more with economic effects, and if you deal with those economic effects, they may not be so bothered if we increase immigration. They might even be pleased at the economic gains. (Remember, some people already gain in their careers from immigration) If we can sustain immigration at the sort of rates we saw recently, maybe 3/4 of a million a year or more, we could have an economy closer to Japan in fifty years time, eventually rivalling Germany and France combined. Growth? In Starmers world you get companies to invest and produce growth by taking £20 Bn away from them. And you further help the cause by painting the UK as deadbeat and broken which of course encourages citizens to sit on their wallets. tbf neilj might be more up on his plans Growth? In Starmers world you get companies to invest and produce growth by taking £20 Bn away from them. And you further help the cause by painting the UK as deadbeat and broken which of course encourages citizens to sit on their wallets. After the pre-election smoked salmon circuit Business Friendly spiel, UKplc will now listen to what they do, not what they say they will do i think. ? |
|
|
|
Post by lens on Nov 17, 2024 17:22:34 GMT
Don't disagree that Putin needs to be boxed in and strapped down as part of the peace deal. There will have to be some carrot as well as carrying on just beating him with a stick will be counter productive. Sanctions should be released very gradually in reward for continued behaviour standards. So the same thing that was done when Putin invaded Georgia and Crimea Didn't work then and can't see it working now For me any peace deal must come with the right for Ukraine to join NATO. Only that, I think, would be likely to deter Putin from a third invasion of Ukraine Without inside knowledge, we can only speculate on what may be being said to Putin. The pessimists seem to just be assuming "ending the war soon" means a complete cave in, the US just effectively walking away. Maybe that is the case - but I find it conceivable that Putin may have to make concessions himself to get the US to stop supporting Ukraine with military aid. If that should be so, then Russian acceptance of Ukraine eventually joining NATO (and the EU?) may be top of the list? Not too palatable to Putin, but from his perspective if the other side of the coin is international agreement of new borders with a transfer from Ukraine to Russia of land (especially Crimea), and normalisation of international relations with Russia, together with an end to the war, then maybe such a deal will be seen as good enough? The ongoing war may be more painful to Ukraine than Russia, but that's not to say the Russians don't want it to come to an end. |
|
jib
Member
Posts: 3,000
Member is Online
|
Post by jib on Nov 17, 2024 18:01:43 GMT
So the same thing that was done when Putin invaded Georgia and Crimea Didn't work then and can't see it working now For me any peace deal must come with the right for Ukraine to join NATO. Only that, I think, would be likely to deter Putin from a third invasion of Ukraine Without inside knowledge, we can only speculate on what may be being said to Putin. The pessimists seem to just be assuming "ending the war soon" means a complete cave in, the US just effectively walking away. Maybe that is the case - but I find it conceivable that Putin may have to make concessions himself to get the US to stop supporting Ukraine with military aid. If that should be so, then Russian acceptance of Ukraine eventually joining NATO (and the EU?) may be top of the list? Not too palatable to Putin, but from his perspective if the other side of the coin is international agreement of new borders with a transfer from Ukraine to Russia of land (especially Crimea), and normalisation of international relations with Russia, together with an end to the war, then maybe such a deal will be seen as good enough? The ongoing war may be more painful to Ukraine than Russia, but that's not to say the Russians don't want it to come to an end. Last sentence, yes painful consequence. But less painful than the consequences that could have seen Ukraine capitulated and Russified. They've earned a reasonable deal with blood and guts. N.B. EU and UK need to watch that Trump doesn't hog the lucrative rebuilding contracts in Ukraine for corporate team USA. |
|
