Thanks Thanks:  43
Likes Likes:  763
Page 32 of 109 FirstFirst ... 2230313233344282 ... LastLast
Results 311 to 320 of 1084
  1. #311

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peterchilton View Post
    Interesting document here, although it wasn't what I was originally talking about

    How immigrants affect public finances - Full Fact
    I don't have time to read properly - it's stopped raining! I can walk the dog without dissolving for once!- but I've seen that article before and doesn't it demonstrate a + effect of immigration from within the EEA and a - effect from everywhere else? And it's the everywhere else we could have turned off like a tap if we wanted to, at any point we liked?

  2. #312
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Mid Wales
    Posts
    779

    Default

    Isn't that the Labour madness? Re nationalising everything so that we can revel in mediocrity.?

  3. #313
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Mid Wales
    Posts
    779

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Safranfoer View Post
    I don't have time to read properly - it's stopped raining! I can walk the dog without dissolving for once!- but I've seen that article before and doesn't it demonstrate a + effect of immigration from within the EEA and a - effect from everywhere else? And it's the everywhere else we could have turned off like a tap if we wanted to, at any point we liked?
    It all seems to be in the red up to 2015. But you have to consider that Mr Lammy (Labour) thinks there are 300,000 illegal immigrants in London, and this doesnt count them ... so who knows
    Last edited by peterchilton; 15-11-2019 at 03:09 PM.

  4. #314
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Yorkshire (were there a god it'd be god's own country) & Afrique
    Posts
    3,899

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by T7 View Post
    Immigrants contribute more to the public coffers than non immigrants per person so you could argue they have more right than ‘natives’. Even though they talk/look funny 🙄
    I've had a copy of the NI no nonsense guide to International Migration for decades. I've recently re-read it in the cold light of day and new experiences. Peter Stalker did make (and in some cases did repeat) some glaring errors in that. There's a great example where he uses his a priori bias to say "these figures show there is no change to unemployment figures when immigration increases..." when in reality if you look into the data they show something 180 degrees different, i.e. in most places it did, unemployment went up.

    So depending if you interpret the data, or just parrot his words, you get two different (and likely strongly held) views. But one is still wrong and without much support. As ever follow the money.

    Another issue is that in those days, immigration was small beer, and because of the changes to working habits (such as the benefits of employing immigrant nannies being able to allow housewives/househusbands time to go and get a paid job), but of course, you can't keep increasing everyone's salary and consumerism forever, against the backdrop of a recession and undermining of collective bargaining / undercutting of native labour.

    Have you got any up to data figures for the period post-2004 (whereafter there was a huge increase in EU migration into the UK) that support your bold assertion?

    It's bizarre that most NHS studies about demand on it, only refer to post-2004 too. Wonder why.



    The NHS is a total horrorshow issue and it's a disaster that successive governments have always allowed it to get worse and even more unsustainable.

    No one in their right mind would expect anything but problems with the way it's hoist to BigPharma's petard.

    No one in their right mind would expect anything but problems with the way it's been managed and had PPI (Bliar-Broon) foist on it.

    No one in their right mind would expect anything but problems with the way the Tories and Libs have underinvested in it.

    No one in their right mind would expect anything but problems with the way it's kept people alive and given out really expensive hip- knee- etc. replacements a dime a dozen to the aging population we have that keeps on growing (unsustainable).

    No one in their right mind would expect anything but problems with the way it's had to cope with increasing population in the UK, including the net >2 Million EU migrants that have happily settled here.

    It's all a mess, and should have been sorted.

    In the absence of that, maybe some of the excess 0.75 Billion pounds per month we won't be sending to the EU (unless Labour, LibFasc and Greens and other ABA parties get their way) should be used to try and fix it. Need a wipeout at management level and a new sustainability goal mind.
    "...hooking mortality is higher than you'd expect: further evidence that as a numbers game, catch-and-release fishing isn't always as straightforward as it seems"
    John Gierach


    Fed up of debating C&R - see Hidden Content

    Unless otherwise stated, data used in any graph/figure/table are Crown copyright, used with the permission of MSS and/or EA and/or ICES. MSS / EA / ICES are not responsible for interpretation of these data by third parties

  5. #315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peterchilton View Post
    Isn't that the Labour madness? Re nationalising everything so that we can revel in mediocrity.?
    Tell me what is NOT mediocre about our trains right now.

    Tell me the last time you heard anyone absolutely rave about their broadband provider.

    Competition doesn’t make things better for the user. It makes things better for the shareholder. How can we offer less, for more money?

  6. #316

    Default

    Essential services should be under state control. At the moment, the governments of other countries are yielding the benefit of ours.

  7. #317
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    693

    Default

    Some posts on here resemble the infuriating rhetoric of long gone madmen, some the comforting wisdom that can only exist in feminine instinct. My like button has collapsed.
    firefly

  8. #318
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    East Lothian
    Posts
    4,288

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by williegunn2 View Post
    Can you see Apple and Google happily paying Tax, I think not they are International companies and the profits will move to elsewhere.
    Apple, Google, Costa, Amazon et al already repatriate their net profits.

    Furthermore they utilise shady business practises dressed up as legitimate corporate structure to lump costs into higher taxation zones within the EU where business earnings are actually made and 'gross profit' to lower rate taxation zones where fa business is actually done by comparison.

    This is the deal that countries with the highest 'satisfaction' with the EU enjoy and goes some way to explaining the citizens of the ROIs utter bafflement at why most Brits don't like it (and the EU) very much.
    Avast ye scurvey dogs

  9. #319
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    East Lothian
    Posts
    4,288

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by firefly View Post
    Silence can install even more paranoia into small minds than words do. Good points, pol_angler, and good morning to you, too.


    magic!
    Avast ye scurvey dogs

  10. #320

    Default

    I am not sure Labour have this one right.

    Superfast broadband is already available to >95% of the UK. It has been for a few years now.
    Superfast is usually delivered by fibre to the exchanges then relies on the old copper wires to get to individual homes. The further you are away from the exchange, the slower your broadband. This is why a company may offer 40Mb but you only get 10Mb or 20Mb. 40Mb is superfast, 20Mb is not, but you are still connected to superfast broadband. I'm in that category. I only see a problem when more than 2 people in my house are streaming video which rarely happens.
    At work, we have a 100Mb line which is perfectly fine and is still defined as superfast broadband even if it is full fibre. We could pay more for faster full fibre but choose not to because 100Mb is fast enough. We've had full fibre for many years now. We can download very large files very quickly and routinely hold videoconferences with colleagues from all over the world. We could do all this on our old line at 40Mb, now it's just a little faster and a little more reliable. We first had videoconferencing in 2001 but it suffered from a 250ms lag and we didn't use it much then because most others didn't have it.

    The infrastructure labour are talking about is full fibre which is another beast altogether. It is Gb speed broadband and yes, they are technically right that only 8% of the UK has it.
    Would this make a difference to my home life? Absolutely not so I won't be buying it and I'd be a little peeved if I was forced to "buy" it through my taxes if I can identify no "need".
    Would I see a benefit at work from Gb broadband? I doubt it. Again, I'd wait until new technology is developed which can take advantage of such high speeds and enable us to get value for money. What is far more important at work is reliability of the connection so we pay through the nose for security and we have two separate lines. Worth every penny - if you think kids are a pain when your home internet goes down, employees up against deadlines are far far worse and the cost of being down is high.
    Labour put it forward that rural businesses are suffering because they don't have full fibre. I would contest this - most rural businesses today have superfast and that was the key enabler for most business needs and is already in place. Going from 1Mb (ADSL) to 20Mb (not even defined as superfast) is a key enabling step.

    Then consider that 4G mobile is about as fast as most people's current home broadband connection. 5G will be about as fast as full fibre and 5G is already rolling out. 6G will be Tb speeds, way more than full fibre.

    So Labour are going to buy up broadband infrastructure just at the time when mobile internet connections are about to overtake landlines. Mobile data is a massive enabling technology, because it's mobile, and will continue to be for many years. It's where the future is - I can see in 10-15 years I may not even have a landline connection to my house for either phone or broadband. I will certainly keep the landlines at work for security of connection and security of data but that will I think be the only way I will use landlines. In 15 years I think mobile may be reliable enough to run a business from, especially of my business is fully cloud based which it probably will be.

    What Labour are proposing is to use my tax dollars to buy up and invest in infrastructure which may in the next 10-20 years be almost entirely redundant and have very little or no residual value as a national asset.

    They haven't even said if it will be free full fibre for businesses. I am guessing not, given the main beneficiaries may be the super large businesses they intend to make pay for all this.

    It's like buying up shares in betamax. They're not even free kittens he's giving away, they're expensive Dodo's.

    This is what happens when ideology and vote winning click bait gets in the way of common sense and forward thinking.

Page 32 of 109 FirstFirst ... 2230313233344282 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •