We already have a surplus unskilled working-age population in the country though.The problem being that as the population ages, we wont have enough workers to function. Already we're already woefully short in the care sector and if not for foreign workers it would already have fallen apart.
Maybe an answer is more targeted immigration.
Immigrants dont have to be unskilled. That's what I mean by targeted immigration.We already have a surplus unskilled working-age population in the country though.
What is needed is the current population already here needs to be targeted in being trained towards addressing the current shortage in skilled sectors of employment, rather then just increase immigration while crossing our fingers that a percentage of them have the skills required for the skills shortage while increasing the surplus unskilled population which causes more problems than it solves.
I know he's blocked me, but if he or anyone can't see the advantage of asylum seekers coming here who are almost certain to have it granted without months/years in a system that doesn't allow them to work, then they really don't want to see anything positive Labour do. But as we all know Chippy_boy had now admitted he will vote for ANY right wing party to oust Labour. I'm surprised he doesn't just lurk in the Reform and Far Right threads.And be replaced by people whose claims will likely be successful.
How is that going to reduce immigration?
Putting aside the very tiny numbers who arrive in boats, the minimum salary for an immigrant to come to the UK is £41000+.We already have a surplus unskilled working-age population in the country though.
What is needed is the current population already here needs to be targeted in being trained towards addressing the current shortage in skilled sectors of employment, rather then just increase immigration while crossing our fingers that a percentage of them have the skills required for the skills shortage while increasing the surplus unskilled population which causes more problems than it solves.
Great news today with massive investment by Nvidia and Microsoft announced . I'm staggered by the silence from the usual moaners!! Well, not really, as it just proves that even if an economic miracle were to happen tomorrow, many would want it to fail so they could justify their political position.
It also involves significant investment from the state and/or private companies. Something we have been reluctant to finance, certainly since the days of Thatcher.Getting people to upskill is never easy as it usually involves a major training commitment, potentially upheaval of home life and hours worked, and more importantly, a commitment from employers to not just trawl for the very highest qualified when filling vacancies.
Nailed it.It also involves significant investment from the state and/or private companies. Something we have been reluctant to finance, certainly since the days of Thatcher.
We can't even be arsed to train sufficient doctors, nurses and dentists! Though, inexplicably, we have far more accountants per head of population than is usual in Europe.
The British always seem to want a cheap or free solution, and then moan like fuck about the consequences.
You miss the point entirely. The purpose of the 1 in 1 out system is to reduce immigration.The purpose of asylum process isn't to reduce immigration, it's to protect those in need of protection.
That would be great to see :-) We could throw rotten fruit at him every time the the rotor passes by.Poor David Milliband will be beside himself once he's worked out its carbon footprint. I wouldn't blame him if decided to glue himself, naked, to a wind turbine today.
I didn't say it has been. I was responding to the suggestion that a 4% increase (which is actually less than the true rate of RPI - RPIH of 4.2%) is not a "huge increase". We should not IMO be looking to erode the value of the state pension over time, given it is already at a pitifully low level compared to most comparable economies.How has the value of the state pension been reduced?
You miss the point entirely. The purpose of the 1 in 1 out system is to reduce immigration.
No, but total looks about £41bn over 5 years.Heard on SkyNews this morning before leaving for work but there wasn’t a great deal of detail.
You got a link?
Which PM could have such a good diplomatic relationship with Trump and all the European leaders like Starmer does?
Farage? Ed Davey? Badenoch? Corbyn?..
We have more trained doctors than we have spaces for them.We can't even be arsed to train sufficient doctors, nurses and dentists! Though, inexplicably, we have far more accountants per head of population than is usual in Europe.
Come on moomba, keep up. You should know by now that Chippy is an expert on everything depite this below:The purpose of 1 in 1 out is for the government to look tough on immigration to stop criticism from the likes of Farage who says they're not.
What you said was, "People put money into their own pensions so they can be better off in retirement, not so that the government can punish them by reducing the value of their state pension". As the government has not been punishing people by that, you'll forgive me for thinking you were claiming it as historic fact.I didn't say it has been. I was responding to the suggestion that a 4% increase (which is actually less than the true rate of RPI - RPIH of 4.2%) is not a "huge increase". We should not IMO be looking to erode the value of the state pension over time, given it is already at a pitifully low level compared to most comparable economies.
No, we have more trained doctors than the budgets allow the Trusts to employ. As a senior NHS manager said to me a few weeks ago, "we would never turn any qualified staff away if we had an unlimited budget". Well they have and they do unfortunately.We have more trained doctors than we have spaces for them.
Bang on!What you said was, "People put money into their own pensions so they can be better off in retirement, not so that the government can punish them by reducing the value of their state pension". As the government has not been punishing people by that, you'll forgive me for thinking you were claiming it as historic fact.
Unless you know different, the pension has increased relative to earnings (to 30.2%). But you don't want to pay the higher tax to do something about it. See the IFS: "increasing the state pension to be at 33% of average earnings in 2050 would cost an additional £15 billion per year in today’s terms (about 0.5% of national income), compared with keeping the state pension at its current share of average earnings". And see this: "Retaining the triple lock while raising the state pension age would hit poorer people more because the loss of a year of state pension income is more important for those with lower life expectancy (which poorer people tend to have), as they spend fewer years above the state pension age. On the other hand, those with a higher life expectancy benefit relatively more from the triple lock, as they are more likely to be receiving a generously indexed state pension in their 90s and beyond."
There is definitely some confusion when people talk about "Scandinavian" countries and taxation. Its a bit of a fools errand to compare them but where the main difference lies in not what those who earn high salaries pay but instead the basic rate of tax.You surely perceive though that taxes feel high because you're getting nothing back and not because they're so high that it's affecting anything? If we paid tons of tax and everything was amazing then we wouldn't care. That's how it is in the Scandinavian countries, they do pay a ton of tax but everything works so everybody is happy.
We have mid-tax levels but years of low spending have meant that everything we get back is now rubbish. How can you pay tax towards the NHS for example and have to wait years for elective surgery? It's the worst return ever and I don't see how lower taxes are the answer. Taxation is not the right question, spending levels are the right question.
Reeves has the same mentality and obsession with tax because she's trying to increase taxes to make the economy grow by maybe 0.1% whilst everything else stays crap. It's an accountants vanity project and most people hate accountants.
Great news today with massive investment by Nvidia and Microsoft announced . I'm staggered by the silence from the usual moaners!! Well, not really, as it just proves that even if an economic miracle were to happen tomorrow, many would want it to fail so they could justify their political position.
Whatever. Just another thing to add to the endless list you and I disagree upon.What you said was, "People put money into their own pensions so they can be better off in retirement, not so that the government can punish them by reducing the value of their state pension". As the government has not been punishing people by that, you'll forgive me for thinking you were claiming it as historic fact.
Unless you know different, the pension has increased relative to earnings (to 30.2%). But you don't want to pay the higher tax to keep that going. See the IFS: "increasing the state pension to be at 33% of average earnings in 2050 would cost an additional £15 billion per year in today’s terms (about 0.5% of national income), compared with keeping the state pension at its current share of average earnings". And see this: "Retaining the triple lock while raising the state pension age would hit poorer people more because the loss of a year of state pension income is more important for those with lower life expectancy (which poorer people tend to have), as they spend fewer years above the state pension age. On the other hand, those with a higher life expectancy benefit relatively more from the triple lock, as they are more likely to be receiving a generously indexed state pension in their 90s and beyond."