User removed 4
New member
Yes, i cant wait to go and work in f***ing romania !!!
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Hit the poorest the hardest - is this really what people voted for?
- Thread starter London Calling
- Start date
Dave the OAP
Well-known member
which actually for quite a few British companies, that has been the reality ( I worked for a Plastic card printer in Lewes and that firm relocated its manufacturing to Poland)
Talking to a chap who works for Credit Suisse last week, they had been told that there was a steering group set up to investigate moving trading desks to eastern Europe as the infrastructures are there and office rents are negligable.
If that happened, would you go?
sten_super
Brain Surgeon
That wasn't aimed at you, LB, it was aimed at Tooting Gull who accussed Cameron of destroying the education system while ensuring his 'millionaire mates' didn't get taxed too much, when as you point out it's been going on for years under various governments.
User removed 4
New member
To be honest it would be a difficult decision as my kids are in england and still young, but take them out of the equation and i'd be off like a shot, whats not to like ? i'd live like a king out there on the money i get now , i'd have a harem !!
Who needs a harem after you've had Pam from Audenshaw?
Dandyman
In London village.
More than 287,000 Brits have been working abroad, so Bushy would not be alone...
UK Nationals working abroad in September 2008
Austria 2,600
Belgium 10,600
Cyprus 5,900
Czech Republic 1,300
Denmark 8,300
Estonia 300
Finland 1,500
France 36,100
Germany 65,300
Greece 2,700
Hungary 800
Ireland 52,000
Italy 11,100
Luxemburg 2,500
Malta 800
Netherlands 28,200
Poland 2,100
Portugal 4,500
Spain 41,800
Sweden 9,200
TOTAL 287,600
Footnotes:
1 Source Euro Stat 2008 Q3
2 Some, mainly small, countries which have not reported are not included: Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia.
3 The figure for Ireland comes from the Central Statistics office, Ireland: estimated number of persons aged 15 years and over classified by nationality and economic status, June-August, 2007 and 2008.
4 All numbers are rounded to the nearest 100.
User removed 4
New member
So, 287,600 out , how many in ?
User removed 4
New member
Its about time i had another visit to stockport, i can hear the siren call of bredbury getting louder
Negligable at the moment. Low Cost Centres are used in the line of work I'm involved with. I do not have any direct dealings with them but a former colleague suggests that he can get about 2 years out of a LCC before wages have spiralled and they become less viable. He's on his third country now.
Tooting Gull
Well-known member
- Jul 5, 2003
- 11,033
I didn't say Cameron had destroyed the education system. I think he will, and I think he would rather slash frontline public services and welfare than go after the super-rich. Subtle difference, too subtle for you clearly. Mind you, by your own admission you change your views with the wind anyway so by next week you'll probably be a socialist worker.
Your attitude towards 'debate', if I may say so, is a bit of a joke. You get all sanctimonious giving it the big one about wanting 'some kind of debate and adult discussion'. You don't want a debate, just people agreeing with you. In your first post towards me it was 'nonsense, pathetic and spouting rubbish'. We have also had 'condescending and hypocrite' (?). It's an interesting tactical device, and sadly not new to this board.
If all you want to do is trade insults I'll play ball for a short time before it gets tedious, but don't call it something it isn't. And I have to say, the fact you claim to be an economist, as well as being a bit scary, doesn't come as any big suprise. Graphs and theory don't really capture the effects of the realities of major cuts to services. Maybe you'll realise that when it's your son or daughter that can't afford to go to university. It's about priorities, and since some cuts are needed my priority would be to go after those that can afford it before those that can't.
sten_super
Brain Surgeon
What I want is a debate where I can actually follow some line of reasoning. You made no effort to justify your position, and made statements that you could not back up. If you are happy to do that, I actually quite enjoy a political debate.
Maybe I am a bit forthright at times, but quite frankly when I accused you of spouting nonsense, it was because you had made an assertion with absolutely no evidence and it was clearly not true. You were then subsequently unable to back it up with any evidence. As for accusing you of being 'condescending' and a hypocrite, I suggest you re-read the posts that I quoted when I did so, because those summations were entirely accurate. I don't think accusing you of being condescending or a hypocrite is particularly offence anyway, especially since you made continued insinuations that I was in some way stupid or naive because I didn't follow your line of reasoning. It's interesting that DtG, despite disagreeing with my over my politics, thought that my arguments were 'well put together and put forward'. I'll let you make your own mind up as to who that reflects well or badly upon.
I have said previously in this thread that increasing taxation on the super rich clearly should be part of a policy to tackle the debt; however it is not the complete answer, and cuts IMO are necessary as a part of that 'answer'.
I am quite happy to judge governments, and people in general, on their results. Did I have reservations about the Tories economic policy before the election? Yes I did. Do I still have some now? Yes I do. However they are in charge and I am not going to write them off before they have had a chance to do anything. The early signs are that, possibly through fortunate timing, Osbourne has taken over as Chancellor at just the time that the prevailing wind amongst European nations has changed to his direction (i.e. making cuts now rather than continuing to spend).
You may not be a great fan of my profession, and I confess that it isn't much of a perspective from which to judge the effects of cuts to front-line services, but perhaps it also allows me a better perspective on the need to sort out the debt levels. Ultimately, it's all swings and roundabouts and we all have a different perspective on things which is in part as a result of our training and academic disciplines.
Don't touch the cheese Smiffy, it's all gone bad.
Tooting Gull
Well-known member
- Jul 5, 2003
- 11,033
Since you cannot possibly know exactly what the full effects of the current cuts will be, my opinion/guess, though very different to your opinion/guess, is every bit as valid as yours. And it would be idiotic to base any 'guess' solely on what the government themselves claim. They (as Labour did) will announce policies in the way that paints them in the best, or least damaging light.
Are you seriously saying that anyone who has an opinion on future events is 'spouting rubbish' because they can't back it up? Of course they can't completely, it hasn't happened yet. But they can base it on stated intent and history.
And I wouldn't let your ego get too inflated over one person agreeing with something you posted on here, does tend to come before a fall. I can't believe you got so upset about one (widely-held) opinion about Cameron's priorities, you need to harden that hide a bit.
Are you seriously saying that anyone who has an opinion on future events is 'spouting rubbish' because they can't back it up? Of course they can't completely, it hasn't happened yet. But they can base it on stated intent and history.
And I wouldn't let your ego get too inflated over one person agreeing with something you posted on here, does tend to come before a fall. I can't believe you got so upset about one (widely-held) opinion about Cameron's priorities, you need to harden that hide a bit.
sten_super
Brain Surgeon
Tooting Gull, I originally wrote lots of rubbish here responding to your post, but to be honest I'd much rather just move on and discuss some of the issues.
I'll start (if I may); what areas of policy would you propose to cut (if we assume that some kind of cuts are necessary)?
I don't see the point in Trident, would definitely cut that. From my perspective, it seems like the FSA have done a pretty poor job, I would look to reform them, and hope to save some money there. I would cut higher education funding; I don't see the point in 50% of the population going to university if they going to subsequently get a job which doesn't require that degree; some of that saving would be spent on increasing offers and take up of internships and apprenticeships, and some on at the very least maintaining the current spending on schemes tackling skill levels in the jobless, so it probably wouldn't raise that much ultimately! I would introduce means-testing on all benefits, and ensure that they go only to those that need them. I would aim to protect as much of the front line services as possible, but I wouldn't issue any guarantees, even for the NHS. I'm sure more will occur to me in time.
I would partner this with closing any existing known loopholes leading to tax avoidance, and attempt to crack down on evasion. I would also increase VAT to 20%, and press ahead with plans to raise capital gains tax in line with income tax.
I'll start (if I may); what areas of policy would you propose to cut (if we assume that some kind of cuts are necessary)?
I don't see the point in Trident, would definitely cut that. From my perspective, it seems like the FSA have done a pretty poor job, I would look to reform them, and hope to save some money there. I would cut higher education funding; I don't see the point in 50% of the population going to university if they going to subsequently get a job which doesn't require that degree; some of that saving would be spent on increasing offers and take up of internships and apprenticeships, and some on at the very least maintaining the current spending on schemes tackling skill levels in the jobless, so it probably wouldn't raise that much ultimately! I would introduce means-testing on all benefits, and ensure that they go only to those that need them. I would aim to protect as much of the front line services as possible, but I wouldn't issue any guarantees, even for the NHS. I'm sure more will occur to me in time.
I would partner this with closing any existing known loopholes leading to tax avoidance, and attempt to crack down on evasion. I would also increase VAT to 20%, and press ahead with plans to raise capital gains tax in line with income tax.
Dandyman
In London village.
Well said. Cameron's spending and cuts priorities may also be influenced by the following:
Tory donors from the hedge fund and private equity industry
Stanley Fink £1,961,141 cash, £4,325 non-cash
Michael Farmer £2,343,750
Michael Hintze £1,125,430 cash, £1,200 non-cash
Paul Ruddock £435,500 cash, £8,981.30 non-cash
Ryan Robson £265,929.45
Jon Moulton £175,000 cash, £1,600 non-cash
Crispin Odey £157,000
John Singer £123,500 cash, £500 non-cash
Ramez Sousou £109,500 cash, £2,700 non-cash
David Harding £94,100
Alan Howard £83,000
Christopher Rokos £50,000
Source: Electoral Commission
Don't expect any great regulation of the City in the near future.
pork pie
New member
Ok, now how about giving a balanced post and including the donations to the other parties? Those from the unions should be interesting? I wonder if those commie bastards at Unite gave anything?
Dandyman
In London village.
Trade unions generally run a general political fund and a party political fund. Members can opt in or out of either. Companies, of course, are not required to do the same with their shareholders.
If you think Unite are "commies" then you are clearly even more of an uber-right wing freak than your previous posts suggest.
Tooting Gull
Well-known member
- Jul 5, 2003
- 11,033
Ok then, that's a bit more grown-up. You were setting yourself up as an economic guru when the only extra insight provided seemed to be 'We're in debt, there have to be cuts, it may affect everyone' which is stating the bleedin' obvious to put it mildly.
I would agree with most of that, but I have already said that on this thread and many times previously, including well before this election on the universities stuff. I think means-testing has to take into account the locality. Wouldn't take a lot of time, just simply replicate the method used for RPI or whatever it's called now in, say, 20 regions.
I would always target waste before services (last resort), and I think people would be surprised how much effective taxation of wealthy individuals might yield. We're not even talking about fleecing them, just making sure that they and their companies pay what the 'little people' pay, without avoidance, and then maybe a bit extra on top in a truly progressive taxation system. If some millionaire is prepared to leave the country becauser they can't pay about 10 per cent tax any more, fcuk 'em, let 'em go.
You've got to look at defence, especially but not only Trident. What is our role these days?
Let's not forget, there have been massive mistakes from Labour. Given the national debt (£160billion odd?) wasn't the cost of propping up the banks about £117bn? You don't need to look much further than that for one major cause. That must never be allowed to happen again, and there are plenty of insurance-style measures that could be brought in which they will howl about. Then there was Brown's moment of gold madness (£5bn?).
I actually think Cameron won't destroy the NHS, he couldn't after everything he has said about it. He will limit the cuts to waste. I think education should be afforded the same status, but fear it won't be.
And if a Tory can effectively solve the benefits trap problem with a way that saves money, incentivises the search for work, but doesn't cut those that really need help off, I'd be the first to congratulate them. It's not easy.
But the Tories are in power, and he's highlighting where their donations came from. Seeing as Labour are not in power, why should anyone give a f*** where they would claw back the money seeing as they're not going to be given the chance to do so.