The bottom line has to be that we won't agree anydeal that doesn't include the single market. This position doesn't weaken us, as it isn't in the EU's interest to let the negotiations drag on. If we don't stop May now, we won't be able to put the clocks back.
Freedom of movement will be the big sticking point on any deal including single market. Can't see the 27 budging on that.
I don't see May selling the retention of free movement to the rabid Brexit supporting wing of the party or to the nine out of ten Brexit voters who voted predominantly of that issue.
That is why we can't have her negotiating - Cameron agreed a deal that meant EU immigrants couldn't claim benefits when they got here and had to work. That was a pretty good agreement and only a rabid Brexiter, where it is more a religion than common sense, would argue otherwise.
The bottom line has to be that we won't agree anydeal that doesn't include the single market. This position doesn't weaken us, as it isn't in the EU's interest to let the negotiations drag on. If we don't stop May now, we won't be able to put the clocks back.
Freedom of movement will be the big sticking point on any deal including single market. Can't see the 27 budging on that.
I don't see May selling the retention of free movement to the rabid Brexit supporting wing of the party or to the nine out of ten Brexit voters who voted predominantly of that issue.
That is why we can't have her negotiating - Cameron agreed a deal that meant EU immigrants couldn't claim benefits when they got here and had to work. That was a pretty good agreement and only a rabid Brexiter, where it is more a religion than common sense, would argue otherwise.
I know - they will use immigration when it shouldn't be the issue it is. Even they know it is a dirty weapon so they will only use it if the campaign seems to be slipping - like those advocating Brexit did!
The productivity puzzle is an interesting debate. One that we're all detrimentally contributing to given all the time we spend on here during working hours
Yes, I think it is there to see if you research it. The exact amount varies depending on when - but all studies will show EU immigrants make a positive net contribution and a higher one than non EU ones - overall that is. I'm not making an argument against non EU immigration by the way. That is for small minded people to do! Of course there are going to be negative and postive contributors and my point is an overall one.
A recent study from University College London estimated the benefits of EU immigration to the country of being £2b per anum. I have quickly googled below to illustrate the point. There are probably better examples but you get the idea.
I think the numbers are currently pretty even but historically non EU immigration has been higher numbers wise.
I think if you do some more research you will find that no one contributes taxes sufficient to cover what they take out in pubic services and welfare.
I'm not sure that can be right, someone on £1m a year paying over £400k in tax?
I'd hazard a guess that my P60 sum in Tax and NI was more than enough last tax year to cover my use of public services (I get no welfare) and more than likely my wife and two daughters.
I guess it depends what's being taken into the calculation. So over and above things like the NHS there's the police, the armed forces (both of which are working to protect you all the time), fire brigade, schools etc, then there's the basic infrastructure of the country - roads, bridges etc.
No idea how much tax you pay but I'd hazard a guess that when you take into account all the things that our taxes cover most get back more than they pay in.
But surely that's the nature of public services. There is no way on God's green planet that I consume in public services what I pay in tax - but I accept that and don't complain for a second that my taxes are subsidising those on low incomes who will almost certainly be getting back more than they pay in.
Yes, I think it is there to see if you research it. The exact amount varies depending on when - but all studies will show EU immigrants make a positive net contribution and a higher one than non EU ones - overall that is. I'm not making an argument against non EU immigration by the way. That is for small minded people to do! Of course there are going to be negative and postive contributors and my point is an overall one.
A recent study from University College London estimated the benefits of EU immigration to the country of being £2b per anum. I have quickly googled below to illustrate the point. There are probably better examples but you get the idea.
I think the numbers are currently pretty even but historically non EU immigration has been higher numbers wise.
I think if you do some more research you will find that no one contributes taxes sufficient to cover what they take out in pubic services and welfare.
I'm not sure that can be right, someone on £1m a year paying over £400k in tax?
I'd hazard a guess that my P60 sum in Tax and NI was more than enough last tax year to cover my use of public services (I get no welfare) and more than likely my wife and two daughters.
I guess it depends what's being taken into the calculation. So over and above things like the NHS there's the police, the armed forces (both of which are working to protect you all the time), fire brigade, schools etc, then there's the basic infrastructure of the country - roads, bridges etc.
No idea how much tax you pay but I'd hazard a guess that when you take into account all the things that our taxes cover most get back more than they pay in.
But surely that's the nature of public services. There is no way on God's green planet that I consume in public services what I pay in tax - but I accept that and don't complain for a second that my taxes are subsidising those on low incomes who will almost certainly be getting back more than they pay in.
Agree. At this moment in time I may well be paying more than I use (I don't know the per capita cost of the Armed forces, police etc, so it may be I'm not) including all the VAT and other taxes I pay on top of income tax and NI. But I wonder how long it would take to pay off my education and initial NHS costs, and then what will my pension and final NHS costs be? I'll surely be in the red overall all things considered. But even if I end up in the black over my life time, I don't live in a bubble, and I rely on so many people who will not be overall net contributors. Subsidising them benefits me directly (if you want to only look at your own life. There are moral justifications too!). I would not be in my position without lower paid workers. Anyone who thinks otherwise is mugging themselves off.
I still don't know the overall picture with immigration. An immigrant coming fully educated and straight into work will not cost this government anything to educate (and if they come to study, the amount they pay in fees will more than cover their costs), so it's not hard not see why they contribute more than someone born here and educated here. The question is then whether they will have children here, will they stop working to look after them, will they grow old an retire here? Plenty do. Hence second, third and fourth generation immigrants. It sounds like a Ponzi scheme to say "open the doors, they need to pay for everyone else", and then needing more and more immigration to fill in the gaps. I understand the need to fill short term labour gaps, which is why a fluid labour market is useful. but surely it needs to be managed. You also have to wonder if successive governments are doing enough to educate the population at school (wherever they or their parents came from) to do the most in demand jobs.
Yes, I think it is there to see if you research it. The exact amount varies depending on when - but all studies will show EU immigrants make a positive net contribution and a higher one than non EU ones - overall that is. I'm not making an argument against non EU immigration by the way. That is for small minded people to do! Of course there are going to be negative and postive contributors and my point is an overall one.
A recent study from University College London estimated the benefits of EU immigration to the country of being £2b per anum. I have quickly googled below to illustrate the point. There are probably better examples but you get the idea.
I think the numbers are currently pretty even but historically non EU immigration has been higher numbers wise.
I think if you do some more research you will find that no one contributes taxes sufficient to cover what they take out in pubic services and welfare.
I'm not sure that can be right, someone on £1m a year paying over £400k in tax?
I'd hazard a guess that my P60 sum in Tax and NI was more than enough last tax year to cover my use of public services (I get no welfare) and more than likely my wife and two daughters.
I guess it depends what's being taken into the calculation. So over and above things like the NHS there's the police, the armed forces (both of which are working to protect you all the time), fire brigade, schools etc, then there's the basic infrastructure of the country - roads, bridges etc.
No idea how much tax you pay but I'd hazard a guess that when you take into account all the things that our taxes cover most get back more than they pay in.
Agree but the comment was no one pays enough in to cover what they take out which can't be true or we may as well all give up now.
I get a lovely report each year as to where my tax goes, from memory it doesn't show armed forces but I do pay a 5 figure sum for each of benefits and NHS....
Not complaining but to say no one pays enough is clearly wrong (but it may be the majority)
Your assumption is that personal tax is what pays for public services. You ignore VAT, Corporation Tax, fuel duty, business rates, council tax etc etc. I will reword my comment - if you take total public services expenditure and divide by UK population a minuscule number of individuals might pay their share of the cost of public services through personal tax. The only way the books are balanced year to year is through borrowing or a budget surplus. Borrowing has increased because public spending has increased as a faster rate than revenues, depressed as a result of depressed wages. The failure of government has been to find a policy that will boost wages.
On average our annual spending has exceeded annual revenue by 4% over the last 20 years. Last year it was a 3% hole to be filled. When Tony Blair took over in 2007 the Tories were running a budget surplus of a positive 6% of GDP. It then increased rapidly to a negative 6% culminating in a negative 10%. The Tories turned this back to a 10% positive surplus in 2009.
The inability to turn the current 3% gap into a positive budget surplus is because public spending has continued to increase, not fall, and wages and tax revenues have not increased as every Chancellor would expect in a period of economic growth.
Using national debt figures as party political ammunition is playground stuff. I don't necessarily disagree with increasing borrowing to invest in services, if it's invested wisely. Either you don't borrow and have to raise more in taxes today, or you borrow and the next generation pays for it tomorrow out of the resulting increase in GDP, or the enjoyment of better services. If politics wan't such a game, the debate would be around proving the benefits from the borrowing, not how big is it.
Remind me which party donated ££££££££££££££££££ to construction firms and banks to become landlords of schools and hospitals passing on to the taxpayer the mortgage interest costs at credit card levels of interest - why - because they were already embarrassed by the rate of increase in national debt and needed to hide the massive increase in national debt they were passing on to the next generation. An example of Labour's poor record on making economic decisions and needing to use creative accounting to try and hide government spending from the electorate.
Given Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were able to do such a good job on the economy and management of debt, we should all get behind Jezza who has far more support from Labour members than Blair and Brown could ever dream of, they can't all be wrong, so let's all vote Labour, no more Tory bullshit.
I know these figures are all rubbish, @MuttleyCAFC is going to provide the alternative ones to prove it.
I provided the figures which proved that EU immigrants benefit the economy - you went off on a tangent disagreeing with all considered studies.
You quoted a newspaper article giving a figure and mis-stated what the figure represented.
The figure was absolutely 100% correct, it came from HMRC published statistics, not a considered study, I didn't disagree with the figure.
I corrected your misunderstanding of what the figure represented, I apologise if you find correcting your misstatements is tangential or suggests your research is flawed.
You are going to rather extreme lengths to defend a conclusion that is, for all intents and purposes, wrong.
Just waded through this topic and have a few points...
I can't believe that anyone who doesn't own several houses, exotic cars and yachts would consider voting Tory.
I hope this election doesn't become "Brexit 2, the sequel" because another term of office from the Tories will leave the NHS in terminal decline, if they don't manage to finish it off completely in the next five years.
There's a lot of anti-union feeling on here. Don't you realise that the reason we have zero hour contracts and the reason why we have the highest rate of unpaid overtime in Europe is because the unions were destroyed by Margaret Thatcher?
So what's the real problem? Too many immigrants paying tax? Or the Tories cutting public services so even though our population is growing our NHS is shrinking in capacity terms?
Yes, I think it is there to see if you research it. The exact amount varies depending on when - but all studies will show EU immigrants make a positive net contribution and a higher one than non EU ones - overall that is. I'm not making an argument against non EU immigration by the way. That is for small minded people to do! Of course there are going to be negative and postive contributors and my point is an overall one.
A recent study from University College London estimated the benefits of EU immigration to the country of being £2b per anum. I have quickly googled below to illustrate the point. There are probably better examples but you get the idea.
I think the numbers are currently pretty even but historically non EU immigration has been higher numbers wise.
I think if you do some more research you will find that no one contributes taxes sufficient to cover what they take out in pubic services and welfare.
I'm not sure that can be right, someone on £1m a year paying over £400k in tax?
I'd hazard a guess that my P60 sum in Tax and NI was more than enough last tax year to cover my use of public services (I get no welfare) and more than likely my wife and two daughters.
I guess it depends what's being taken into the calculation. So over and above things like the NHS there's the police, the armed forces (both of which are working to protect you all the time), fire brigade, schools etc, then there's the basic infrastructure of the country - roads, bridges etc.
No idea how much tax you pay but I'd hazard a guess that when you take into account all the things that our taxes cover most get back more than they pay in.
Agree but the comment was no one pays enough in to cover what they take out which can't be true or we may as well all give up now.
I get a lovely report each year as to where my tax goes, from memory it doesn't show armed forces but I do pay a 5 figure sum for each of benefits and NHS....
Not complaining but to say no one pays enough is clearly wrong (but it may be the majority)
Your assumption is that personal tax is what pays for public services. You ignore VAT, Corporation Tax, fuel duty, business rates, council tax etc etc. I will reword my comment - if you take total public services expenditure and divide by UK population a minuscule number of individuals might pay their share of the cost of public services through personal tax. The only way the books are balanced year to year is through borrowing or a budget surplus. Borrowing has increased because public spending has increased as a faster rate than revenues, depressed as a result of depressed wages. The failure of government has been to find a policy that will boost wages.
On average our annual spending has exceeded annual revenue by 4% over the last 20 years. Last year it was a 3% hole to be filled. When Tony Blair took over in 2007 the Tories were running a budget surplus of a positive 6% of GDP. It then increased rapidly to a negative 6% culminating in a negative 10%. The Tories turned this back to a 10% positive surplus in 2009.
The inability to turn the current 3% gap into a positive budget surplus is because public spending has continued to increase, not fall, and wages and tax revenues have not increased as every Chancellor would expect in a period of economic growth.
Using national debt figures as party political ammunition is playground stuff. I don't necessarily disagree with increasing borrowing to invest in services, if it's invested wisely. Either you don't borrow and have to raise more in taxes today, or you borrow and the next generation pays for it tomorrow out of the resulting increase in GDP, or the enjoyment of better services. If politics wan't such a game, the debate would be around proving the benefits from the borrowing, not how big is it.
Remind me which party donated ££££££££££££££££££ to construction firms and banks to become landlords of schools and hospitals passing on to the taxpayer the mortgage interest costs at credit card levels of interest - why - because they were already embarrassed by the rate of increase in national debt and needed to hide the massive increase in national debt they were passing on to the next generation. An example of Labour's poor record on making economic decisions and needing to use creative accounting to try and hide government spending from the electorate.
Given Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were able to do such a good job on the economy and management of debt, we should all get behind Jezza who has far more support from Labour members than Blair and Brown could ever dream of, they can't all be wrong, so let's all vote Labour, no more Tory bullshit.
I know these figures are all rubbish, @MuttleyCAFC is going to provide the alternative ones to prove it.
If we are drifting into the area of who is better at running a budget surplus when in government this might be of interest...
"...When Tony Blair took over in 2007 the Tories were running a budget surplus of a positive 6% of GDP. It then increased rapidly to a negative 6% culminating in a negative 10%. The Tories turned this back to a 10% positive surplus in 2009..."
Labour did not take over a surplus budget in 2007 and I'm also unsure how the Tories were able to run a surplus budget in 2009 when they weren't even in power.
"...When Tony Blair took over in 2007 the Tories were running a budget surplus of a positive 6% of GDP. It then increased rapidly to a negative 6% culminating in a negative 10%. The Tories turned this back to a 10% positive surplus in 2009..."
Labour did not take over a surplus budget in 2007 and I'm also unsure how the Tories were able to run a surplus budget in 2009 when they weren't even in power.
It might be because more or less everything Dippy has posted in the last day or so has been completely false.
“The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.” ―Amenhotep IV
Rather than accepting the reality that the Tories are not the financial geniuses that they claim to be, he would rather provide alternative facts to back up his fiction than admit he is wrong and change his opinion accordingly.
This country may claim to be a nation of independent-minded freemen, but our populace has a serious inferiority complex at the merest whiff of old money, and a bizarre colonialist hangover that demands war, blood and self-denial. That's why working folk vote Tory. Their justifications are irrelevant.
Main thing the above chart shows is that a "true" labour PM (Brown) will borrow & spend like its going out of fashion. The Torys have tried to reduce the borrowing but there will never be an answer the problem that is the NHS until an all party committee sort it out.
Main thing the above chart shows is that a "true" labour PM (Brown) will borrow & spend like its going out of fashion. The Torys have tried to reduce the borrowing but there will never be an answer the problem that is the NHS until an all party committee sort it out.
So the financial crisis had nothing to do with borrowing spiking once Brown entered office?
Really interesting debate this, not sure I'm any nearer deciding on which box to put my cross in though! My overriding feeling at the moment is a shiver at the thought of Corbyn being in charge of anything although I can't say any of them fill me with any form of joy or comfort/confidence.
If broadly everyone agree's we're skint, we spend more than we earn (as a country), the NHS is under funded, schools are underfunded in fact most public services are under funded, where will the additional monies come from that are needed? How much is needed etc
I'd like to hear from any party (but particularly Labour) how they will fund all of these things and not with simply cross party digs about they don't, they won't etc.
Main thing the above chart shows is that a "true" labour PM (Brown) will borrow & spend like its going out of fashion. The Torys have tried to reduce the borrowing but there will never be an answer the problem that is the NHS until an all party committee sort it out.
No it doesn't show levels of borrowing at all, just the tax take versus expenditure. I think what you're trying to shift the debate onto is more accurately reflected in...
This country may claim to be a nation of independent-minded freemen, but our populace has a serious inferiority complex at the merest whiff of old money, and a bizarre colonialist hangover that demands war, blood and self-denial. That's why working folk vote Tory. Their justifications are irrelevant.
For me, I'm absolutely certain that some members of the Tory party would love to see the resurrection of the British empire. I would even go so far as to say, although completely unsubstantiated and based on no fact whatsoever, that if you got them behind closed doors, a number would let their real feelings out about certain groups in society, those groups being the poor and different ethnicities.
Living by the sea I only get to breath in the clean, fresh briny air but be interested in what you lot up there in smoggy, old London town think about the government seeking to delay their air pollution plan until after the election?
I don't think too much one way or the other. What it tells me is that it is going to get a lot more expensive after the election to own a deisel and that would probably be the case under any government given what we now know. Not so long ago, we all honsetly belived it was the cleaner option! As so many people own them, it is probably not a good idea to publicise it too much! If I had one, I'd sell now!
- a hard right party in power - an ideological war being waged against the poor, homeless and disabled - rise in xenophobia and Islamophobia - leaving the EU and the EEA - anti-migrant sentiments - refugees being scapegoated and international obligations on asylum seekers being flouted - withdrawing from international human rights jurisdiction - the party in power allied in the European Parliament with far-right parties - water cannons purchased to be used against own citizens - civil liberties being withdrawn - threats against other EU nations regarding defence and security - Government going to court to subvert democratic procedure - widespread corruption amongst officials in power - international environmental commitments being ignored or flouted - backtracking on women's rights - healthcare provision being withdrawn
- a hard right party in power - an ideological war being waged against the poor, homeless and disabled - rise in xenophobia and Islamophobia - leaving the EU and the EEA - anti-migrant sentiments - refugees being scapegoated and international obligations on asylum seekers being flouted - withdrawing from international human rights jurisdiction - the party in power allied in the European Parliament with far-right parties - water cannons purchased to be used against own citizens - civil liberties being withdrawn - threats against other EU nations regarding defence and security - Government going to court to subvert democratic procedure - widespread corruption amongst officials in power - international environmental commitments being ignored or flouted - backtracking on women's rights - healthcare provision being withdrawn
Then it would be a serious cause for concern.
You can add gerrymandering and potential electoral fraud to that list.
Living by the sea I only get to breath in the clean, fresh briny air but be interested in what you lot up there in smoggy, old London town think about the government seeking to delay their air pollution plan until after the election?
I think it's disgusting but then I think it's disgusting that nothing has been done about it for many years. I'm not sure of the exact figure but doesn't London break the annual pollution maximum within a few weeks each year?
I'm sure it's got a lot to do with the weather and climate but it seems to be getting worse in that the number of days this year when you can see the smog seems to be increasing. I can't remember seeing that for many years.
What is the potential of this fraud investigation? I read an opinion piece that suggest that May called the election due to this, rather than Brexit. When doing so well in the polls, it seemed a better option than facing so many by-elections and potentially losing her majority and facing a vote of no confidence in the house. Could we be about to have our own FBI style moment? Roughly 10% of the government may be charged with fraud, or is this going to be buried as well?
From what I know the investigations do not relate to electoral fraud (which relates to vote tampering or otherwise manipulating an election) but the lesser charge of campaign expenses fraud. Unlike the former, being charged or found guilty of the latter would not automatically lead to a by-election or barring from office. They also have a reasonable defence that they were being advised by the national party that it was all above board and there is no precedent for 'battle bus' spending and how this should be divvied between national and local spending.
This is a bit of a red herring; it might sound like a sore spot for the Tories but in reality I imagine little will come of it. It would be far more fruitful to press them on where the Tories are failing: Brexit, the economy, public spending, the NHS, public transport, the environment, education etc.
- keep putting off lower pollution - wait until everyone dies
Christ, what's happened? You sound like me on speed!
I think he's either been got at or on a monumental wind-up.
Come the day before the election he'll post something like 'Only joking - now get out there and vote for the only party to make us great again - the Conservatives'.
Comments
I still don't know the overall picture with immigration. An immigrant coming fully educated and straight into work will not cost this government anything to educate (and if they come to study, the amount they pay in fees will more than cover their costs), so it's not hard not see why they contribute more than someone born here and educated here. The question is then whether they will have children here, will they stop working to look after them, will they grow old an retire here? Plenty do. Hence second, third and fourth generation immigrants. It sounds like a Ponzi scheme to say "open the doors, they need to pay for everyone else", and then needing more and more immigration to fill in the gaps. I understand the need to fill short term labour gaps, which is why a fluid labour market is useful. but surely it needs to be managed. You also have to wonder if successive governments are doing enough to educate the population at school (wherever they or their parents came from) to do the most in demand jobs.
Anyone who thinks relentless headlines like these don't influence the popular perception around an issue is being completely unrealistic.
I can't believe that anyone who doesn't own several houses, exotic cars and yachts would consider voting Tory.
I hope this election doesn't become "Brexit 2, the sequel" because another term of office from the Tories will leave the NHS in terminal decline, if they don't manage to finish it off completely in the next five years.
There's a lot of anti-union feeling on here. Don't you realise that the reason we have zero hour contracts and the reason why we have the highest rate of unpaid overtime in Europe is because the unions were destroyed by Margaret Thatcher?
"...When Tony Blair took over in 2007 the Tories were running a budget surplus of a positive 6% of GDP. It then increased rapidly to a negative 6% culminating in a negative 10%. The Tories turned this back to a 10% positive surplus in 2009..."
Labour did not take over a surplus budget in 2007 and I'm also unsure how the Tories were able to run a surplus budget in 2009 when they weren't even in power.
“The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.” ―Amenhotep IV
Rather than accepting the reality that the Tories are not the financial geniuses that they claim to be, he would rather provide alternative facts to back up his fiction than admit he is wrong and change his opinion accordingly.
If broadly everyone agree's we're skint, we spend more than we earn (as a country), the NHS is under funded, schools are underfunded in fact most public services are under funded, where will the additional monies come from that are needed? How much is needed etc
I'd like to hear from any party (but particularly Labour) how they will fund all of these things and not with simply cross party digs about they don't, they won't etc.
independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/air-pollution-andrea-leadsom-emergency-enivironment-secretaryearly-deaths-purdah-clean-public-health-a7699991.html
- a hard right party in power
- an ideological war being waged against the poor, homeless and disabled
- rise in xenophobia and Islamophobia
- leaving the EU and the EEA
- anti-migrant sentiments
- refugees being scapegoated and international obligations on asylum seekers being flouted
- withdrawing from international human rights jurisdiction
- the party in power allied in the European Parliament with far-right parties
- water cannons purchased to be used against own citizens
- civil liberties being withdrawn
- threats against other EU nations regarding defence and security
- Government going to court to subvert democratic procedure
- widespread corruption amongst officials in power
- international environmental commitments being ignored or flouted
- backtracking on women's rights
- healthcare provision being withdrawn
Then it would be a serious cause for concern.
I'm sure it's got a lot to do with the weather and climate but it seems to be getting worse in that the number of days this year when you can see the smog seems to be increasing. I can't remember seeing that for many years.
- keep putting off lower pollution
- wait until everyone dies
This is a bit of a red herring; it might sound like a sore spot for the Tories but in reality I imagine little will come of it. It would be far more fruitful to press them on where the Tories are failing: Brexit, the economy, public spending, the NHS, public transport, the environment, education etc.
Come the day before the election he'll post something like 'Only joking - now get out there and vote for the only party to make us great again - the Conservatives'.