Manifest Stupidity V: Stitched up Like a Kipper

kabayiri

michaels wrote: »

....
Low skilled European immigration is good for the vast majority of the population as it holds down wages for the lowest paid and thus holds down prices for everyone else (the majority). Of course it is not such good news for the lowest paid. Surely it is no coincidence that Carney's forward guidance with respect to unemployment at 7% being a level that might trigger wage increases and thus interest rate increses turned out to be much too pessimistic?
...

A similar argument underpinned the use of vast Chinese labour in manufacturing or Indian labour in call centres and IT.

The trouble is there is an expectation of wage increases. It has been hard to control costs in some of the Chinese factories. I had to deal with a trebling of wage rates in India in little more than a decade.

The same expectation will arise amongst the immigrants working in retail, hotels and coffee shops.

What do we do then? Bring in cheaper people and displace the last lot?

wotsthat

kabayiri wrote: »

Interesting Telegraph journo on daily politics now. He asked a question in the UKIP launch of their manifesto, about black faces in the document (or lack of).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32321623

Really...has it come down to some kind of top trumps game, where we should count the number of black disabled lesbians in a manifesto and award a score accordingly?

All we end up with is "documents for all" ... so watered down they have no long term vision.

The lack of black faces in the manifesto will have been deliberate as is Labour's painfully PC attempt to include ethnically diverse photos. These things will have been discussed ad infinitum. UKIP supporters would likely be turned off by seeing ethnically diverse faces in the pages.

Of course, a smart alec journalist is going to ask about the lack of black faces in the manifesto but as the question is entirely predictable there will always be black UKIP supporters available at press conferences as backup. Farage probably slipped the journo a tenner - he gets to keep black faces out of the manifesto and got to take the moral high ground when asked why.

Every single photo in the manifesto is of a white person apart from some poor African woman who's trying to get some foreign aid.

wymondham

I do like the dropping of the 50%+ target of school leavers go to uni (not sure if this is in the others manifestos?). Pushing people to uni regardless of their ability and aptitude is crazy.


My son is 17 and he says that they have never had employment discussions at school that do not involve going to uni first. Teachers wont entertain the fact that some people are not suited or able.


My wife works in recruitment and see's the other end. Employing graduates on jobs on minimum wage without their degree's being useful or relevant (and most saying so during interview).


Reduce uni and stop the waste.... if you want to be a Doctor or vet etc, great, but it shouldn't be the default choice....

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

The lack of black faces in the manifesto will have been deliberate as is Labour's painfully PC attempt to include ethnically diverse photos. These things will have been discussed ad infinitum. UKIP supporters would likely be turned off by seeing ethnically diverse faces in the pages.

Of course, a smart alec journalist is going to ask about the lack of black faces in the manifesto but as the question is entirely predictable there will always be black UKIP supporters available at press conferences as backup. Farage probably slipped the journo a tenner - he gets to keep black faces out of the manifesto and got to take the moral high ground when asked why.

Every single photo in the manifesto is of a white person apart from some poor African woman who's trying to get some foreign aid.

You appear to be suggesting the only reason the black people were there was in order to use them against an unknown question!?

I was pretty appauled by the "UKIP voters would be turned off by multicultural faces" and then read your bit about the token black people. whom, in your mind, are only there to be used.

Ever thought those black people were there because they have their own minds and wish to be there? Or would that be too far a stretch of the mind?

Mallotum_X

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You appear to be suggesting the only reason the black people were there was in order to use them against an unknown question!?

I was pretty appauled by the "UKIP voters would be turned off by multicultural faces" and then read your bit about the token black people. whom, in your mind, are only there to be used.

Ever thought those black people were there because they have their own minds and wish to be there? Or would that be too far a stretch of the mind?

It would be extremely remiss of UKIP to not have made sure there were a group of black/Asian supporters there regardless. These things are planned to the minute detail and they know the white/black faces thing follows them round. Whether the people there were "token" or not, there would have been a discussion to make sure they had some "token" members there come what may.

Interesting to note that the group were all sat together, co-incidence maybe or perhaps to ensure a good camera view when the inevitable question was asked.

All the parties are good at stage managing these sort of things, ukip are no different.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You appear to be suggesting the only reason the black people were there was in order to use them against an unknown question!?

Any dimwit could have told you that question was going to come up. It was far from unknown.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I was pretty appauled by the "UKIP voters would be turned off by multicultural faces" and then read your bit about the token black people. whom, in your mind, are only there to be used.

Ever thought those black people were there because they have their own minds and wish to be there? Or would that be too far a stretch of the mind?

I have no idea why people would allow themselves to be pimped out by Nigel Farage in this way. Naivety maybe.

kabayiri

It's all managed, to the point where we can't really see the reality.

It is pointless second guessing though. Are we to only trust those launches and speeches which fit in with our own prejudices?

Cyberman60

wymondham wrote: »

I do like the dropping of the 50%+ target of school leavers go to uni (not sure if this is in the others manifestos?). Pushing people to uni regardless of their ability and aptitude is crazy.


My son is 17 and he says that they have never had employment discussions at school that do not involve going to uni first. Teachers wont entertain the fact that some people are not suited or able.


My wife works in recruitment and see's the other end. Employing graduates on jobs on minimum wage without their degree's being useful or relevant (and most saying so during interview).


Reduce uni and stop the waste.... if you want to be a Doctor or vet etc, great, but it shouldn't be the default choice....

I never went to Uni, never wanted to, as I wanted to earn money, but I did continue studies on day release and evening school for six years. I've always been against so many going to Uni as I cannot see how it can be suitable for so many.

I'd reduce the numbers drastically, to maybe less than 20%, more or less as it was before Labour's meddling, and let them study for free as long as they are learning a subject towards a core skill that will help the economy (eg: Law, Science, Computing, Business Studies(MBA), Accounting etc).


Thankfully, the Tories are heavily promoting companies to offer apprenticeships, which surely is the way to go. Learn on the job, gain experience and qualify while earning a living. It makes total sense rather than studying for an expensive degree that may not help to get a related job or any job.

princeofpounds

I don't think we need to cut students all the way back to where it was before. Universities and degrees have proliferated, hollowing out the old technical college system (who does an HND any more? they used to be respectable). So there will probably be an extra 10% or so that stay in the system compared to before.

CLAPTON

Cyberman60 wrote: »

I never went to Uni, never wanted to, as I wanted to earn money, but I did continue studies on day release and evening school for six years. I've always been against so many going to Uni as I cannot see how it can be suitable for so many.

I'd reduce the numbers drastically, to maybe less than 20%, more or less as it was before Labour's meddling, and let them study for free as long as they are learning a subject towards a core skill that will help the economy (eg: Law, Science, Computing, Business Studies(MBA), Accounting etc).


Thankfully, the Tories are heavily promoting companies to offer apprenticeships, which surely is the way to go. Learn on the job, gain experience and qualify while earning a living. It makes total sense rather than studying for an expensive degree that may not help to get a related job or any job.

nothing like remembering
-that it was Thatcher that expanded the universities by upgrading all the polys
-and that many apprenticeships are only a device for reducing headline unemployment figures
-and that that the UK makes a lot of money and foreign earning from things like fashion, film studios, the arts etc
-and if UK people want to compete in the international market place, a degree is often essential whether relevant to the job or not.

apparently pounds made from fashion/arts can buy the same goods and services as money made from jet engines