UKIP aren't trying to create division or "pit nation against nation" - All they want is proper border controls. It is responses like yours above which stifles the debate.
I actually think UKIP bring forward policies which seek to address the root cause of a lot of problems we currently face in the UK, instead of offering hazy, unclear liberal wishy-washy policies which everyone knows won't work.
UKIP are not offering a debate though are they?
They are not either bringing forward policies, all they offer (other than lets leave the EU) is a series of dog whistle sound bites based on what smiley Nige thinks will play well.
They had a ludicrous election manifesto 4 years ago which even the smiley one now disowns.
They have completely incoherent policy flavours (not real policies). Today it was about banning foreigners from entering the UK who are HIV positive - which Carswell refused to endorse when Nige raised it. Last week it was some policy "ideas" thrown into the ring by the Finance spokesman shot down in flames immediately by the Nige.
This is not debate, neither is it a proper political party, its merely the cult of Nigel.
The Lib Dems had proper debate on all aspects of their parties policies which are then voted on democratically. Please don't insult my intelligence by claiming that people with my range of views are stifling debate and if you read what I wrote you will see that I am crying out for a proper debate on issues relating to the EU and a referendum to settle these matters.
By referring to the policies that I espouse as wishy-washy liberal without in way actually addressing them, is exactly the stifling of debate you accuse me of doing. I am willing to debate these issues, all of them - any time, any place, anywhere. That's what we do in the party I support. It's not what happens with UKIP.
What people don't understand is the wages in the construction industry are being driven down by immigration. The average home owner in this country needs to earn a decent wage a day to cover the cost of their mortgage, council tax, energy bills etc whilst supporting their family. When you get a group of 10 Eastern Europeans living in a house together sharing the bills amongst them they may only need £140 a week to cover the cost, this results in them agreeing to work for £80 a day as they don't need to earn as much as me and you. This then means employers know they can get labour for a lower price and so when we walk on a job that is all they are willing to pay hence keeping wages down and to a minimum, I've been quite fortunate I've landed an excellent job but go back two years and I was earning the same as when I finished my apprentaship 14 years ago, when really with growth and inflation I should of been getting a lot more but you can't and that's because immigration drives the cost down, fellow tradesmen are struggling and agencies are as bad.
Absolutely spot on.
My son is a self-employed carpenter and would back up absolutely every word you say.
Problem is all these public school idiots like Cameron, Clegg and Milliband live in a world far removed from the realities of the working man. And they are all now surprised to find that people are saying "we've had enough of this".
Yes, because the likes of Farage wen to Eltham Green and Walsall Polytechnic.....no, hold on!
Farage: Dulwich College.
He's just the same as the other three - but very good at pretending he is not.
As others have alluded to already, go ask the Institute of Directors and The Confederation of British Industry - or any of the major UK construction firms (all massive supporters of the Conservative Party - as is their perfect right) what they think about Eastern European immigration.
You'll find pretty quickly that they - as they will have told the government - absolutely fucking love it because as others have said the availability of cheap foreign labour drives down wages and increases their profits.
Having driven their wage costs down successfully does anyone think the UK construction industry has any fucking intention whatsoever of allowing them to grow back to where they were? Not an earthly.
Moreover, if UK building workers DID get their wages back to where they used to be then what do you reckon would happen to already sky high house prices?
The world has changed forever and you can't put the cork back in the bottle.
I understand the points you guys are making and sympathise with what's happening on the sites. Can I just mention what's been happening on building sites in the Czech Republic?
This country joined the EU in 2004. Both before and since then, the building trade has been dominated by Ukrainians. These guys are all unofficial. Nobody quite understands how they get here or why they are allowed to stay, because Ukraine of course is not in the EU. But the building bosses claim that they are hardworking and reliable, and without them houses wouldn't get built. The politicians believe them and turn a blind eye. Sounds familiar, right?
So my point is, even if we ( the UK) weren't in the EU, these guys will get in,and get work, because the British building bosses will continue to make the same claims (excuses) that they cannot otherwise get affordable labour. It's already happening in the food processing industry with loads of Chinese and Vietnamese- they are nothing to do with the EU.
It's a huge problem, but it affects every reasonably prosperous country in the world, so don't let Farage and co kid you that they will fix it all by leaving the EU
Sometimes good intentions have a negative impact. The minimum wage concept - and the higher the better - seems like a noble goal - but is it?
I've just had a look at a list of the 190-odd UN countries' minimum wages, expressed in US$ for comparison purposes. Only Australia, Belgium, Canada (but only just), France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Monaco, New Zealand and San Marino have higher minimum wages than the UK. (Three of those countries you'll notice are very small.)
Of those countries an EU migrant worker is only really likely to get into and get a job in Belgium, France, Ireland and the UK.
So, let's introduce other factors into the equation: Belgium has relatively high personal taxation and low personal tax allowances; France and Ireland have economic stagnation; then there's the added attraction of benefits available in the UK (which can be much more beneficial than,say, Ireland which has, for example, a €100 a day fee for a hospital bed or €100 fee for an A&E visit).
It is not so difficult to see why prospective EU migrant labour sees the UK's relatively high minimum wage as very attractive indeed. So, maybe, it is actually the problem and what attracts all the foreign workers in the first place? Without it, perhaps things would be different and UK workers could find jobs paying a fair wage?
It is of note that most of the really successful, rich countries don't have one. Pretty much all of Scandinavia, Germany and Switzerland seem to do very well without.
I procure construction contracts in the SE of England.
I recently tendered for a contract worth about £600k and sure enough four traditional contractors priced tenders around that figure - fair competition where (generally) the lowest tenderer would be successful.
Due to the value, we had to advertise the work at a European level. A Polish company - who fulfill all the Legal and H&S criteria and tender requirements - tendered the work at £350K.
In a not for profit organisation, I had no alternative but to recommend awarding the contract to the Polish company. The £200k odd saved can be used elsewhere.
We as a company don't lose out - but there are four traditional small to medium sized local construction companies who may well need to lay off some of their workers and backroom staff as a result.
There are a lot of people in the construction industry, from tea boys to Managing Directors who will be voting UKIP come May.
You can argue all you like about policies and substance - but there is one clear issue for them at the moment.
Sometimes good intentions have a negative impact. The minimum wage concept - and the higher the better - seems like a noble goal - but is it?
I've just had a look at a list of the 190-odd UN countries' minimum wages, expressed in US$ for comparison purposes. Only Australia, Belgium, Canada (but only just), France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Monaco, New Zealand and San Marino have higher minimum wages than the UK. (Three of those countries you'll notice are very small.)
Of those countries an EU migrant worker is only really likely to get into and get a job in Belgium, France, Ireland and the UK.
So, let's introduce other factors into the equation: Belgium has relatively high personal taxation and low personal tax allowances; France and Ireland have economic stagnation; then there's the added attraction of benefits available in the UK (which can be much more beneficial than,say, Ireland which has, for example, a €100 a day fee for a hospital bed or €100 fee for an A&E visit).
It is not so difficult to see why prospective EU migrant labour sees the UK's relatively high minimum wage as very attractive indeed. So, maybe, it is actually the problem and what attracts all the foreign workers in the first place? Without it, perhaps things would be different and UK workers could find jobs paying a fair wage?
It is of note that most of the really successful, rich countries don't have one. Pretty much all of Scandinavia, Germany and Switzerland seem to do very well without.
The UK is a rich successful country with a minimum wage.
Sometimes good intentions have a negative impact. The minimum wage concept - and the higher the better - seems like a noble goal - but is it?
I've just had a look at a list of the 190-odd UN countries' minimum wages, expressed in US$ for comparison purposes. Only Australia, Belgium, Canada (but only just), France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Monaco, New Zealand and San Marino have higher minimum wages than the UK. (Three of those countries you'll notice are very small.)
Of those countries an EU migrant worker is only really likely to get into and get a job in Belgium, France, Ireland and the UK.
So, let's introduce other factors into the equation: Belgium has relatively high personal taxation and low personal tax allowances; France and Ireland have economic stagnation; then there's the added attraction of benefits available in the UK (which can be much more beneficial than,say, Ireland which has, for example, a €100 a day fee for a hospital bed or €100 fee for an A&E visit).
It is not so difficult to see why prospective EU migrant labour sees the UK's relatively high minimum wage as very attractive indeed. So, maybe, it is actually the problem and what attracts all the foreign workers in the first place? Without it, perhaps things would be different and UK workers could find jobs paying a fair wage?
It is of note that most of the really successful, rich countries don't have one. Pretty much all of Scandinavia, Germany and Switzerland seem to do very well without.
The UK is a rich successful country with a minimum wage.
That's why I said "most". But if you think about what makes us relatively successful - financial services and high-end manufacturing, (the services sector accounts for around 80% of GDP) - none of those have anything whatsoever to do with the impact of the minimum wage on jobs at the lower end of the pay scales.
It's confusing, isn't it, that the UK has the sixth highest average NET salary in the world and only 5.6% of households are considered poor* because they have 10% less coming in than that average, yet we are still worried about foreign workers nicking our jobs.
*This isn't poor as that status would be recognised by a citizen of, for example, India of course.
I do find it slightly ironic that UKIP supporters are invariably proponents of a free market, loosely regulated economy in every other situation...until it impacts upon their own personal circumstances it seems.
It's entirely understandable on an instinctive level that a brickie working on site would look at those working next to him (or her) and blame them for falling wages but counter intuitive that their response to this is to vote UKIP.
A vote for UKIP is not going to increase wages that have been driven to the bottom by market forces overnight or even in the medium term. Those polish workers are already here and the employers, having driven down wages to maximise profits will resist it. Then there's all the other protection that WILL be removed by a withdrawal from the EU like the working time directive for example.
Sometimes good intentions have a negative impact. The minimum wage concept - and the higher the better - seems like a noble goal - but is it?
I've just had a look at a list of the 190-odd UN countries' minimum wages, expressed in US$ for comparison purposes. Only Australia, Belgium, Canada (but only just), France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Monaco, New Zealand and San Marino have higher minimum wages than the UK. (Three of those countries you'll notice are very small.)
It is of note that most of the really successful, rich countries don't have one. Pretty much all of Scandinavia, Germany and Switzerland seem to do very well without.
is that right @cafcfan? The Scandis and Germans don't have a minimum wage system? I'm very surprised to learn that so thanks (not for the first time) for opening our eyes a bit.
On the other hand, I also recall the recent interview withe the Polish Foreign minister on Andrew Marr.He pointed out that it is entirely our own fault - and fixable - if our benefit system looks more attractive to potential migrants, than other EU countries. He said that in Poland you have to work for six months before qualifying, and he said there is nothing to stop us doing the same, and Poland would support us making such a change.
Sometimes good intentions have a negative impact. The minimum wage concept - and the higher the better - seems like a noble goal - but is it?
I've just had a look at a list of the 190-odd UN countries' minimum wages, expressed in US$ for comparison purposes. Only Australia, Belgium, Canada (but only just), France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Monaco, New Zealand and San Marino have higher minimum wages than the UK. (Three of those countries you'll notice are very small.)
It is of note that most of the really successful, rich countries don't have one. Pretty much all of Scandinavia, Germany and Switzerland seem to do very well without.
is that right @cafcfan? The Scandis and Germans don't have a minimum wage system? I'm very surprised to learn that so thanks (not for the first time) for opening our eyes a bit.
On the other hand, I also recall the recent interview withe the Polish Foreign minister on Andrew Marr.He pointed out that it is entirely our own fault - and fixable - if our benefit system looks more attractive to potential migrants, than other EU countries. He said that in Poland you have to work for six months before qualifying, and he said there is nothing to stop us doing the same, and Poland would support us making such a change.
Yes, it is right. But most (all?) instead rely upon grown up collective bargaining. Germany, for example, has collective bargaining sometimes across industries rather than just individual manufacturers. They also have strong employee representation at boardroom level in the companies.
Hey, perhaps we should have industry-wide collective bargaining for players wages in football!
I thought I would check out the rest and found this...
European countries have some of the highest standard minimum wages in the world thanks to long traditions of labour movements and rights. Compared to other developed regions, like the US, even countries with relatively modest minimum wage provisions look positively generous. Though the Netherlands has the highest official minimum wage levels, it is likely Scandinavian worker’s are paid more on average, as those countries do not have standardised hourly rates of pay for workers.
1. The NetherlandsThe Netherlands has the highest standard minimum wages in Europe, and the world. However, the country has a complicated two-tiered system, and only workers aged 23 and above qualify for the higher €66.77 a day mandated by law.2. LuxembourgMinimum wage structures in Luxembourg take into account workers’ experience, age and maturity, however, the standard minimum wage for those over 18 starts at €1,801.49 per month, going up to €2,161.79 if workers are considered skilled.3. IrelandThough the country has been struggling to recover from a devastating crisis, hourly minimum wages have remained high, at €8.65 an hour. However, they have not been readjusted since 2007, so in real terms they have actually gone down, when inflation is accounted for.4. BelgiumMinimum wage laws did not exist in Belgium until 2012, and now they only cover workers aged 21 and over. Between the ages of 21 and 22, workers’ wages increase from €1,501.82 to €1,559,28 per month, provided they remain employed during that year.5. UKMinimum wages were increased in the UK in 2011; workers aged over 21 years are paid £6.19 an hour, while those aged 18 to 21 are paid £5.98 per hour. Workers under the age of 18 are also guaranteed a minimum wage of £3.68 an hour provided they have completed compulsory education.
Switzerland does not have a legal minimum wage but a system of collective bargaining is entered into by virtually everyone and they had topped the list of 'minimum' earnings.
An example of the kind of cheap European labour UKIP will put a stop to...coming over here, taking British jobs, forcing down wages...
Not exactly cheap European labour though is it?
I believe it is about a third of the wage of Chris O'Grady... therefore a fifth of that of Noel Hunt....etc, etc... and he has put poor old Churchy out of a job. Disgusting.
I had a conversation with someone I know about politics who is in huge favour of the EU but voted for UKIP at the EU elections. I asked him why when UKIP want to get out and he wanted to give the 3 other parties a kick up the backside. He has a point, considering all the 3 parties lie and the public are starting to feel that they have not been listened to and they feel totally let down. I think it's mainly down to this more than anything else really.
I do find it slightly ironic that UKIP supporters are invariably proponents of a free market, loosely regulated economy in every other situation...until it impacts upon their own personal circumstances it seems.
It's entirely understandable on an instinctive level that a brickie working on site would look at those working next to him (or her) and blame them for falling wages but counter intuitive that their response to this is to vote UKIP.
A vote for UKIP is not going to increase wages that have been driven to the bottom by market forces overnight or even in the medium term. Those polish workers are already here and the employers, having driven down wages to maximise profits will resist it. Then there's all the other protection that WILL be removed by a withdrawal from the EU like the working time directive for example.
As a certain US President from Arkansas used to say, "Everyone is in favour of change in general, just not to them in particular."
The Tories made great hay about Labour's immigration policies - which Labour did fuck all to defend, preferring instead to hide in the corner with the sheets over their head - but have they done anything to substantially reverse those policies? Have they bollocks.
The Tories are just like the Republicans in the US who publicly decry Latino immigration and call for the utterly laughable "sealing of the border" - whilst simultaneously taking huge wads of cash from corporations that sure as shit love cheap foreign labour en masse and love the status quo.
I completely agree that Labour made a complete bollocks of their immigration policy, with the Islington Set having no idea whatsoever the impact that immigration was having on their working class heartlands in areas like Thanet etc. - and, quite frankly, caring even less.
Farage has swooped on this like Bernard Manning onto a Pakistani in the front row of the Embassy Club but eventually the UKIP cabaret has to end and they have to - as the Lib Dems have since 2010 - engage in serious politics and that is when they will be utterly exposed for the opportunists that they are.
But apart from stopping immigration and leaving the EU, what are UKIP's policies?
I don't really know, and tbh I don't really care. But if the other parties start to face these two issues head on because of UKIP's popularity then that's a good thing in my opinion.
So if UKIP's policies were to privatise the NHS, move to a flat rate income tax (which would mean lower earners would have to pay a higher percentage to make up for the shortfall in revenue from higher earners - I think 31% was suggested) abolish the minimum wage, maternity leave entitlement and other employment protections, you'd still be happy to vote for them as long as they took us out of the EU?
If you actually read the policy you would realise the 31% is actually the combination of income tax and national insurance This act alone would save hundreds of millions a year on terms of bureaucracy. Also as a combination of the two it would actually be a reduction in tax for those in the lowest band. Not a fan of the policy but you might as well get your facts right.
I am a liberal and as long as I have a hole in my a*se I will always be one, small "l" and large "L".
I have spent my adult life opposing nationalism and xenophobia.
I am passionately pro - European - not because the EU is faultless, it plainly is far from that, but because I believe that the EU is the best way the peoples of Europe can put behind them the ancient emnities that resulted in two catastrophic world wars during the 20th Century.
Of course NATO was formed to put a structure to the armed forces but it is economic strength and a spreading of economic benefit which will stop people from huddling around their nationalist narrow horizons.
I am angry that the party I have supported all my life has got themselves into a disastrous state. They did the right thing going into coalition - it showed huge courage given they were bound to take a kicking. Unfortunately even I didn't expect them to have made such a horlicks of things. The student loans fiasco was so poorly handled and Clegg looked far too much like his head was up Cameron's jacksie for far too long. They should have dumped him at least a year ago in my view.
It troubles me even more than when nationalism is on the rise in our country, when civil liberties are being threatened every day, when a reemergence of the nasty party has jettisoned the "green crap", and wants to withdraw from the Human Rights legislation written by British Lawyers and given life by one W S Churchill, when Labour is weak and it's policies are ill - defined, and when the positive case for the EU is never more than a whisper; the country needs a strong progressive party as a counter - weight to all of this yet it is unable to get its message across due to the toxicity of its leader.
The Lib Dems will take a huge kicking at the next General Election - they will lose many seats. UKIP may well gain a larger share of the vote, and some MPs but I don't see them getting anything more than a dozen or so.
This may lead to a realignment of politics in this country with UKIP maybe even replacing the Tories as the right of centre party over the next few years. What I do know is there will always be progressive centre left leaning Liberal (Lib Dem) Party that is not classed based, it may never break the mold, I am pretty certain it won't win a majority in my lifetime but there are millions of people like me who will never turn to parties who pit nation against nation, that seek to create division, by class or otherwise and find scapegoats to blame for all the ills of citizens lives.
As regard the EU, We are at a crossroads. The EU is in crisis - the Euro-zone is a car crash.
Don't let it's problems though blind us from the fact that if it all falls apart - all of the countries, including us will be massively and negatively affected. We are are seeing an economic downturn in our economy as a direct result of recession in the Euro-zone already. Imagine the fall out if the market collapsed?
It's all very well Farage and UKIP wanting us out but they ignore the huge economic disaster that will bring. He can claim that in the long run we will trade successfully from outside - it ain't going to happen in any time scale that won't result in economic disaster followed by huge levels of unemployment . Those who support smiley Nige now will be burning him in effergy should he get his way as the UK economy falls off the cliff.
What really f*cks me off is that there is no proper debate. Clegg screwed it up by playing the man, not the ball whilst the biggest beasts in UK politics looked the other way, or buried their heads in the sand.
Call me Dave is offering a referendum but in truth he doesn't want one and will find any excuse to want to stay in. Silibland has a policy on Europe which is completely incoherent. Why he doesn't offer a referendum god only knows?
I believe the time is overdue for a referendum and we can't duck it any longer. I will be out there fighting for our country to remain part of a market and a group of countries which does allow free movement of labour - which will, despite its many faults, remain a huge trading area for the benefit of jobs and prosperity - especially once the Euro-zone has resolved it's structural weaknesses.
As a PHD student in economics I can say that on the "resulting economic disaster" that you mentioned. You have been sold a lie and propaganda that the main parties do not want you to know! There is such as thing as the EFTA European free trade area. As part of this you get all the trading privileges of being in the EU which let's face it is the only benefit and you lose all the political union bullshit such as a European national anthem and a European air force and all the rest. It pays a small subscription fee less than a hundredth of what we pay to the EU. It would allow us to make our own trade deals wi th India China Brazil and any other non EU country which would be massively beneficial. We would also be able to represent ourselves on the world trade organisation rather than have a Belgium bureaucrat do it for us. We would be allowed to freely fish our own waters and to freely farm out own land without being ruled by the common fisheries policy and the common agricultural policy. There are endless benefits and very few costs. There would certainly be no economic disaster. The economy may take some time to adjust but we would be better in the long run.
UKIP have momentum and unless they as a party or Farage does anything particularly damaging, will continue to grow.
Their few policies are based on tapping into what the common man is perceived to be disgruntled about. Highlighting problems and pledging to tackle problems. They will keep widening their policy manifesto to include more things people feel disgruntled about. This will keep happening until a time when they may have to actually deliver on these policies and then realise that they are completely unworkable in either a practical or financial way.
One thing these by-elections have proved is that unless there is constitutional change or something crazy happens, we will have a Labour government for the next two elections at the very least imo.
Two right-leaning parties against 1-left leaning will only have one outcome, until a disgruntled splinter left group breaks off from Labour and splits their vote the same way that UKIP has split the Conservative vote. Everyone says about UKIP's meteoric rise, but that has still taken 11 years to get to now.
But apart from stopping immigration and leaving the EU, what are UKIP's policies?
I don't really know, and tbh I don't really care. But if the other parties start to face these two issues head on because of UKIP's popularity then that's a good thing in my opinion.
So if UKIP's policies were to privatise the NHS, move to a flat rate income tax (which would mean lower earners would have to pay a higher percentage to make up for the shortfall in revenue from higher earners - I think 31% was suggested) abolish the minimum wage, maternity leave entitlement and other employment protections, you'd still be happy to vote for them as long as they took us out of the EU?
If you actually read the policy you would realise the 31% is actually the combination of income tax and national insurance This act alone would save hundreds of millions a year on terms of bureaucracy. Also as a combination of the two it would actually be a reduction in tax for those in the lowest band. Not a fan of the policy but you might as well get your facts right.
A good plan - on the surface. But, at a stroke, they become completely unelectable. At present, pensioners do not pay NICs. They would not want to be paying the higher tax rate if it got amalgamated would they? (At the 2010 election, 76% of registered voters aged over 65 went to the ballot box; and 73% of the 55–64 year-olds. This compared to 55% of the 25–34 year-olds and just 44% of the 18–24 year-olds.)
Of more viable interest would be the abolishing of all benefits to be replaced by negative income tax. (Which, I think, was/is also a UKIP policy). At a stroke you could save a fortune sacking all those benefits staff. The same system could be used to pay state pensions.
That highlights the difference between being a mainstream party in Govt and having to deal with reality and being a marginal political party spouting bollocks.
One of the things about the UKIP arguments is I have no sense of how they expect it would work. The reason there are migrants coming here rather than Ireland, or Spain or Portugal, is because the British economy has some life in it: if it tanks again then many of the migrants will leave - this is especially true of builders. To stop migrants coming, as Prague notes in the Czech republic, pulling out of the EU isn't going to work. Australia can manage to control migration because it is miles from anywhere and the only close country (NZ) has agreements for workers coming. The USA patently can't manage it, despite spending loads on border controls. And I note that it is only people, as in labour, that anyone thinks should be stopped from going where the work is. Capital can go wherever it likes. I suspect when we see UKIP have any other policies, they will largely be Thatcher-era Tory ones: privatise whatever's left; cut what few rights people have at work even more; cut more council services. I've no problem at all with people giving the main parties a kicking; everything UKIP say about them being out of touch elites is true, though UKIP never mention the real reason: they are in hock to big business and the personnel at the top of all parties is interchangeable with certain companies, especially consultants like PWC. Obviously businesses don't all agree and will express that differently politically. What works for Amazon won't necessarily be good for a small building firm in Kent. Ultimately, Britain went into the EEC as it was at the time at the behest of the USA and American interests want Britain there as a counterbalance to France and Germany, and Germany wants Britain in as a counterbalance to France. I can see Germany wanting to make concessions, but I doubt free movement would be one as it is pretty much fundamental to how a free market is supposed to work.
An example of the kind of cheap European labour UKIP will put a stop to...coming over here, taking British jobs, forcing down wages...
Prague, I usually enjoy reading your posts but, with the greatest respect, this is just silly.
Do you really think that when Igor's people came over to negotiate a deal with the club they said "So Churchy is on £3k a week, is he? That's no problem, my boy will do it for 1.5k a week"
I don't think anyone is saying - not even UKIP - that we should stop all immigration into the country. Nobody wants to stop highly skilled people that the country needs to grow its economy coming in. But do we really need hundreds of thousands of unskilled people coming in who are driving down wages for many people at the bottom?
That`s exactly it, UKIP want highly skilled,talented migrants who have something to offer and not millions of low skilled workers who we have plenty of ourselves or millions of migrants who have absolutely no intention whatsoever of integrating into the British way of life or contributing anything whatsoever positive to this country and who will just be a drain on health, education, benefits and indeed law and order.
I procure construction contracts in the SE of England.
I recently tendered for a contract worth about £600k and sure enough four traditional contractors priced tenders around that figure - fair competition where (generally) the lowest tenderer would be successful.
Due to the value, we had to advertise the work at a European level. A Polish company - who fulfill all the Legal and H&S criteria and tender requirements - tendered the work at £350K.
In a not for profit organisation, I had no alternative but to recommend awarding the contract to the Polish company. The £200k odd saved can be used elsewhere.
We as a company don't lose out - but there are four traditional small to medium sized local construction companies who may well need to lay off some of their workers and backroom staff as a result.
There are a lot of people in the construction industry, from tea boys to Managing Directors who will be voting UKIP come May.
You can argue all you like about policies and substance - but there is one clear issue for them at the moment.
That's very interesting and it's hard not to sympathise but we are all guilty in this one way or another. I want in my own domestic circumstances best value for money and by way of example look to get the cheapest broadband I can source. If that low cost comes with a support package based in India instead of Newcastle I have to make a choice. Do I pay more and speak with a Geordie or get best value and chat with an Indian ?
I suggest you ask the same question to your construction tea boys and managing directors.
Comments
They are not either bringing forward policies, all they offer (other than lets leave the EU) is a series of dog whistle sound bites based on what smiley Nige thinks will play well.
They had a ludicrous election manifesto 4 years ago which even the smiley one now disowns.
They have completely incoherent policy flavours (not real policies). Today it was about banning foreigners from entering the UK who are HIV positive - which Carswell refused to endorse when Nige raised it. Last week it was some policy "ideas" thrown into the ring by the Finance spokesman shot down in flames immediately by the Nige.
This is not debate, neither is it a proper political party, its merely the cult of Nigel.
The Lib Dems had proper debate on all aspects of their parties policies which are then voted on democratically. Please don't insult my intelligence by claiming that people with my range of views are stifling debate and if you read what I wrote you will see that I am crying out for a proper debate on issues relating to the EU and a referendum to settle these matters.
By referring to the policies that I espouse as wishy-washy liberal without in way actually addressing them, is exactly the stifling of debate you accuse me of doing. I am willing to debate these issues, all of them - any time, any place, anywhere. That's what we do in the party I support. It's not what happens with UKIP.
Farage: Dulwich College.
He's just the same as the other three - but very good at pretending he is not.
You'll find pretty quickly that they - as they will have told the government - absolutely fucking love it because as others have said the availability of cheap foreign labour drives down wages and increases their profits.
Having driven their wage costs down successfully does anyone think the UK construction industry has any fucking intention whatsoever of allowing them to grow back to where they were? Not an earthly.
Moreover, if UK building workers DID get their wages back to where they used to be then what do you reckon would happen to already sky high house prices?
The world has changed forever and you can't put the cork back in the bottle.
I understand the points you guys are making and sympathise with what's happening on the sites. Can I just mention what's been happening on building sites in the Czech Republic?
This country joined the EU in 2004. Both before and since then, the building trade has been dominated by Ukrainians. These guys are all unofficial. Nobody quite understands how they get here or why they are allowed to stay, because Ukraine of course is not in the EU. But the building bosses claim that they are hardworking and reliable, and without them houses wouldn't get built. The politicians believe them and turn a blind eye. Sounds familiar, right?
So my point is, even if we ( the UK) weren't in the EU, these guys will get in,and get work, because the British building bosses will continue to make the same claims (excuses) that they cannot otherwise get affordable labour. It's already happening in the food processing industry with loads of Chinese and Vietnamese- they are nothing to do with the EU.
It's a huge problem, but it affects every reasonably prosperous country in the world, so don't let Farage and co kid you that they will fix it all by leaving the EU
I've just had a look at a list of the 190-odd UN countries' minimum wages, expressed in US$ for comparison purposes.
Only Australia, Belgium, Canada (but only just), France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Monaco, New Zealand and San Marino have higher minimum wages than the UK. (Three of those countries you'll notice are very small.)
Of those countries an EU migrant worker is only really likely to get into and get a job in Belgium, France, Ireland and the UK.
So, let's introduce other factors into the equation: Belgium has relatively high personal taxation and low personal tax allowances; France and Ireland have economic stagnation; then there's the added attraction of benefits available in the UK (which can be much more beneficial than,say, Ireland which has, for example, a €100 a day fee for a hospital bed or €100 fee for an A&E visit).
It is not so difficult to see why prospective EU migrant labour sees the UK's relatively high minimum wage as very attractive indeed. So, maybe, it is actually the problem and what attracts all the foreign workers in the first place? Without it, perhaps things would be different and UK workers could find jobs paying a fair wage?
It is of note that most of the really successful, rich countries don't have one. Pretty much all of Scandinavia, Germany and Switzerland seem to do very well without.
I recently tendered for a contract worth about £600k and sure enough four traditional contractors priced tenders around that figure - fair competition where (generally) the lowest tenderer would be successful.
Due to the value, we had to advertise the work at a European level. A Polish company - who fulfill all the Legal and H&S criteria and tender requirements - tendered the work at £350K.
In a not for profit organisation, I had no alternative but to recommend awarding the contract to the Polish company. The £200k odd saved can be used elsewhere.
We as a company don't lose out - but there are four traditional small to medium sized local construction companies who may well need to lay off some of their workers and backroom staff as a result.
There are a lot of people in the construction industry, from tea boys to Managing Directors who will be voting UKIP come May.
You can argue all you like about policies and substance - but there is one clear issue for them at the moment.
It's confusing, isn't it, that the UK has the sixth highest average NET salary in the world and only 5.6% of households are considered poor* because they have 10% less coming in than that average, yet we are still worried about foreign workers nicking our jobs.
*This isn't poor as that status would be recognised by a citizen of, for example, India of course.
I do find it slightly ironic that UKIP supporters are invariably proponents of a free market, loosely regulated economy in every other situation...until it impacts upon their own personal circumstances it seems.
It's entirely understandable on an instinctive level that a brickie working on site would look at those working next to him (or her) and blame them for falling wages but counter intuitive that their response to this is to vote UKIP.
A vote for UKIP is not going to increase wages that have been driven to the bottom by market forces overnight or even in the medium term. Those polish workers are already here and the employers, having driven down wages to maximise profits will resist it. Then there's all the other protection that WILL be removed by a withdrawal from the EU like the working time directive for example.
On the other hand, I also recall the recent interview withe the Polish Foreign minister on Andrew Marr.He pointed out that it is entirely our own fault - and fixable - if our benefit system looks more attractive to potential migrants, than other EU countries. He said that in Poland you have to work for six months before qualifying, and he said there is nothing to stop us doing the same, and Poland would support us making such a change.
Hey, perhaps we should have industry-wide collective bargaining for players wages in football!
European countries have some of the highest standard minimum wages in the world thanks to long traditions of labour movements and rights. Compared to other developed regions, like the US, even countries with relatively modest minimum wage provisions look positively generous. Though the Netherlands has the highest official minimum wage levels, it is likely Scandinavian worker’s are paid more on average, as those countries do not have standardised hourly rates of pay for workers.
1. The NetherlandsThe Netherlands has the highest standard minimum wages in Europe, and the world. However, the country has a complicated two-tiered system, and only workers aged 23 and above qualify for the higher €66.77 a day mandated by law.2. LuxembourgMinimum wage structures in Luxembourg take into account workers’ experience, age and maturity, however, the standard minimum wage for those over 18 starts at €1,801.49 per month, going up to €2,161.79 if workers are considered skilled.3. IrelandThough the country has been struggling to recover from a devastating crisis, hourly minimum wages have remained high, at €8.65 an hour. However, they have not been readjusted since 2007, so in real terms they have actually gone down, when inflation is accounted for.4. BelgiumMinimum wage laws did not exist in Belgium until 2012, and now they only cover workers aged 21 and over. Between the ages of 21 and 22, workers’ wages increase from €1,501.82 to €1,559,28 per month, provided they remain employed during that year.5. UKMinimum wages were increased in the UK in 2011; workers aged over 21 years are paid £6.19 an hour, while those aged 18 to 21 are paid £5.98 per hour. Workers under the age of 18 are also guaranteed a minimum wage of £3.68 an hour provided they have completed compulsory education.
Switzerland does not have a legal minimum wage but a system of collective bargaining is entered into by virtually everyone and they had topped the list of 'minimum' earnings.
All facts are equal.........
m.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28140594
Some of the arguments against it in Germany look depressingly familiar...
I had a conversation with someone I know about politics who is in huge favour of the EU but voted for UKIP at the EU elections. I asked him why when UKIP want to get out and he wanted to give the 3 other parties a kick up the backside. He has a point, considering all the 3 parties lie and the public are starting to feel that they have not been listened to and they feel totally let down. I think it's mainly down to this more than anything else really.
The Tories made great hay about Labour's immigration policies - which Labour did fuck all to defend, preferring instead to hide in the corner with the sheets over their head - but have they done anything to substantially reverse those policies? Have they bollocks.
The Tories are just like the Republicans in the US who publicly decry Latino immigration and call for the utterly laughable "sealing of the border" - whilst simultaneously taking huge wads of cash from corporations that sure as shit love cheap foreign labour en masse and love the status quo.
I completely agree that Labour made a complete bollocks of their immigration policy, with the Islington Set having no idea whatsoever the impact that immigration was having on their working class heartlands in areas like Thanet etc. - and, quite frankly, caring even less.
Farage has swooped on this like Bernard Manning onto a Pakistani in the front row of the Embassy Club but eventually the UKIP cabaret has to end and they have to - as the Lib Dems have since 2010 - engage in serious politics and that is when they will be utterly exposed for the opportunists that they are.
This act alone would save hundreds of millions a year on terms of bureaucracy. Also as a combination of the two it would actually be a reduction in tax for those in the lowest band. Not a fan of the policy but you might as well get your facts right.
Perhaps people should read the article first ?
UKIP are not far off the BNP and are racist and xenophobic .
Their few policies are based on tapping into what the common man is perceived to be disgruntled about. Highlighting problems and pledging to tackle problems. They will keep widening their policy manifesto to include more things people feel disgruntled about. This will keep happening until a time when they may have to actually deliver on these policies and then realise that they are completely unworkable in either a practical or financial way.
One thing these by-elections have proved is that unless there is constitutional change or something crazy happens, we will have a Labour government for the next two elections at the very least imo.
Two right-leaning parties against 1-left leaning will only have one outcome, until a disgruntled splinter left group breaks off from Labour and splits their vote the same way that UKIP has split the Conservative vote. Everyone says about UKIP's meteoric rise, but that has still taken 11 years to get to now.
Ed Milliband as our leader. Good lord.
Of more viable interest would be the abolishing of all benefits to be replaced by negative income tax. (Which, I think, was/is also a UKIP policy). At a stroke you could save a fortune sacking all those benefits staff. The same system could be used to pay state pensions.
That highlights the difference between being a mainstream party in Govt and having to deal with reality and being a marginal political party spouting bollocks.
And I note that it is only people, as in labour, that anyone thinks should be stopped from going where the work is. Capital can go wherever it likes.
I suspect when we see UKIP have any other policies, they will largely be Thatcher-era Tory ones: privatise whatever's left; cut what few rights people have at work even more; cut more council services.
I've no problem at all with people giving the main parties a kicking; everything UKIP say about them being out of touch elites is true, though UKIP never mention the real reason: they are in hock to big business and the personnel at the top of all parties is interchangeable with certain companies, especially consultants like PWC. Obviously businesses don't all agree and will express that differently politically. What works for Amazon won't necessarily be good for a small building firm in Kent.
Ultimately, Britain went into the EEC as it was at the time at the behest of the USA and American interests want Britain there as a counterbalance to France and Germany, and Germany wants Britain in as a counterbalance to France. I can see Germany wanting to make concessions, but I doubt free movement would be one as it is pretty much fundamental to how a free market is supposed to work.
Do you really think that when Igor's people came over to negotiate a deal with the club they said "So Churchy is on £3k a week, is he? That's no problem, my boy will do it for 1.5k a week"
I don't think anyone is saying - not even UKIP - that we should stop all immigration into the country. Nobody wants to stop highly skilled people that the country needs to grow its economy coming in. But do we really need hundreds of thousands of unskilled people coming in who are driving down wages for many people at the bottom?
I know which I would prefer!
I suggest you ask the same question to your construction tea boys and managing directors.