I've read that Barnier is saying Euro 100 bn is unachievable and may stall the negotiations, but that was his opinion. He is simply Theresa May's David Davis. Agree, the divorce settlement is there to smooth over the transition. What May is saying on importing labour is that employers must justify, and show that equivalent quality is not available at home. They may get penalised for taking in cheap labour which undercuts the market, but where skilled labour is required e.g. tech companies, and none available domestically, employers will be able to establish need. Alongside all this, is the need to ensure young British people have the best education possible and train for relevant skills, whether or not this is university or apprenticeships. The Blair era where university was a right of passage, feet up for three years without thought to how a particular degree may help in the jobs market, is past.
The May intention is to double the existing £1,000 per head per annum levy on employers for employing foreigners (after they have shown that no British applicants are suitable/available) and extend it to cover EU nationals. This is in the manifesto. It covers the most skilled workers as well as the least skilled. In fact the cheapest ones are probably not covered as much as they are on zero hours contracts/allegedly self employed/ come over with gang masters for harvests etc. It will take years to 'build up' a similarly skilled pool of British workers because, as you say, our education system is ****, whoever you blame (even if it is Blairs fault the Tories have had 7 years to fix it and have made it worse on all levels. Our Bloated university system is now totally dependent on foreign students, including EU ones). There was a bloke on the news last night who's funky tech company (doubtless in London) had 80% non British employees, 50% of them from the EU. May's policy will increase the amount he has to pay for employing these people by nearly 500%. All these skilled and doubtless low public service using people pay U.K. taxes and spend money here. They are net contributors to our country. The owner has already had offers from several European cities to relocate, and his business is not dependent on being in a particular place. If they go the exchequer loses all of the related tax (corporate, income, foreign employee levy etc etc) from his firm and those firms which supply/service him will also be less profitable. BUT we will have got rid of some foreigners which is what we are told the majority of British citizens want. Huzzah!
I don't have a problem with the £2000 levy, currently covering ex-EU immigrants if, as has been said, the money is used to help train UK apprentices. There's a balance to be had between (1) companies operating from, and taking the benefits of, e.g. London and employing almost exclusively foreign workers and (2) the amount they contribute to the country in taxes. Integration and the culture of this country is important (and the Brexit result showed it was so) and of course, these immigrants (if they stay, and most do) will in time utilise all the services, so we will need more immigrants to service them. It's not a sustainable policy long term. The skill is getting the balance right, to reduce the scale of immigration.
We should leave the EU but stay in the single market with free movement. Then if Clegg, Farron or farage complain about staying in the EU or having free movement tell them we've already had the vote and to stick the second ref up there arrises. This is the Norway option mentioned by Leave campaigner Daniel Hannon. It's what Cameron should have stayed around and organised instead of flouncing off in a huff
After what has been a pretty decent week for Labour, they return to form with a fight between the Shadow Foreign Secretary and the Shadow Defence Secretary about Trident. Some Labour spokesman on he Today programme was very funny though 'I haven't come on here to explain what's going on in Emily Thornberry's mind at any given time, because fortunately I don't know'. I haven't got any moral objections to nuclear weapons. They exist, they can't be uninvented, and in themselves they are morally neutral. Who would have guessed in 1945 that they wouldn't be used again for 72 years and counting - when else in human history have people had access to better weapons and not used them? So somehow they have worked, and doubtless saved millions of lives by 'traditional' wars avoided as result of their existence. What I would like is a cool headed, pragmatic debate about why the UK needs them in the 21st century. I am genuinely prepared to be persuaded either way. We forget that we developed our own bombs (a fantastic scientific achievement in the post war context) primarily to buy ourselves a place on the top table of global powers. Perhaps this argument still holds true. As far as I can see we our nuclear capacity is enough to win any conflict with a non nuclear power, but not with the Russians or Chinese, where we would be dependent on the US. Perhaps we need them as a gesture to the Americans that we will share moral responsibility for use with them (though not, I suspect, the decision to use) if push comes to shove, so we can shelter under their mega umbrella. Is a 'tactical' limited nuclear war possible? Is the investment (£34bn for the new ones I think) value for money? Is there a cheaper way to keep the bombs if we want them? Of course, the real debate is not about the technology, but about the people who control it. May and Macron are probably the safest nuclear hands at the moment. Trump, Putin, Xi, Netanyahu, Modi, Sharif and, god help us, Kim.......any one else feel we are living in dangerous times?
Tories looking to reduce spending by cutting free school meals. About as short-sighted and ill-thought a policy as you can hope to come up with to save a few quid.
Not sure what they're trying to achieve, TBH. Seems like a pitch for votes (but to whom?) rather than a real desire to do better. I read a communication from a head teacher complaining about it. He likes having everyone sitting down to lunch together in his school - a sense of social cohesion that he believes is valuable. He feels that many children won't bother coming to school early for their free breakfast and doesn't know how he's going to pay for staff to come in early to prepare the food and monitor the dining room. At lunchtimes, they're already onsite at work.
I think the idea is that they save money and reinvest it in education. Clearly not well thought through. School breakfasts? I doubt it will stop the wobble bottoms I see walking past my house every morning eating crisps and swigging caffeinated sugar stopping off at the shop on their way in.
From an apparently unassailable position, the Tories seem to be doing their best to lose this election. A bizarre manifesto promising to hit pensioners, schoolchildren and foxes is not going to be wildly popular. You can't argue with the numbers in it though, because there aren't any. Polls out today show Labour closing the gap, so expect the personal attacks on Corbyn to be ramped up.
Down to a single digit lead for the first time since the snap election was announced.....maybe this isn't gonna be the foregone conclusion that some in the right wing media were hoping for.
I'm starting to think she's trying to throw this to let Corbo deal with Brexit or at least get a poor enough result to be able to resign.
They tried Project Fear mk2 in the EU ref and there were enough of their own people to call the government on it - so it failed. And yet all they seem to be doing is Project Fear mk3, and a few uncosted big announcements. People are wise to the "corbyn is in the ira", or "corbyn wants to turn the clock back to 1974" Project Fear smears. I'm really surprised at how ham fisted the Tory campaign has been so far.
It's a reflection of their leader. She's a vacuum, ****ing useless. But still the best they have to offer, so they've made their entire pitch around her, who has no identifiable opinions and, except on grammar schools, fox hunting and human slavery, changes her approach as soon as she sees opposition (see how they dump the dementia tax soon just like in the budget) versus Corbyn, who's a bit of a gimp but has a shed load of policies. To everyone's surprise the British electorate seem to be increasingly interested in policy. Good for us. On today's polls Tories have a 46 seat majority. If recent trends continue I don't doubt that they will win but anything less than a 25-30 seat majority leaves her in hock to both sides of her own party, the extremist anti Europeans and the vast majority of Tory MPs who voted Remain, and who may be emboldened to be more assertive by a close result rather than the supine, lobotomised sheep they have been since the referendum. In terms of Brexit may all be irrelevant, Davies already threatening to walk out of talks if he doesn't like the format or financial demands
They have really been acting as though it was just a question of how big the landslide would be. Why the **** did she bring up fox hunting? There are no votes to be won with that. I saw a piece on Newsnight describing how they were devoting campaign resources to relatively safe Labour seats, as if marginals were already in the bag. Voters don't like arrogance - remember Kinnock's infamous Sheffield rally?
I am staggered at how this election is going....but still 2 weeks to go ...things can really change right up to the last few days ( a terrorist attack could swing the polls right around for example) Mays spin doctors will be working over time in the next week. I really don't get the fox hunting comment as Stroller says...a stupid thing to say...regardless of your politics most people 80-85% are against it and to be honest it is nothing to do with running the country...STUPID
