Labour people, its time to dump Corbyn

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

Is that why so many who have jobs are so poor they are claiming welfare?

there are no people in the UK who are poor by world standards, but the not so rich in the UK, can claim benefits partly becaue we have mad benefits systems that actively discourages people working hard and also we have a system of continually importing cheap labour to hold wages down and discourage employers creating high pay, high productivity jobs.

padington

mrginge wrote: »

So if thing are better here, how does migration benefit poor British people ?

Until Brexit came along we enjoyed the fifth biggest economy in the world. Employment almost full. Benefits generous. Health and education free. Culture often free. Maybe the most influential country in regards to soft power, the world over.

People prepared to lose their life to get here.

What more do you want ?

You have no idea how lucky we had it. Not now though, storm clouds for everyone are gathering because of an entitlement culture and nasty prejudice to others that will make us and our partners poorer because of this Brexsh*t.

Well done, twits.

padington

CLAPTON wrote: »

a lower value to the pound will indeed make imports more expensive (including foreign holidays).
The inability of 30 year olds to be able to live in a family sized house has an impact on their welfare.

I consider the impact of poor housing has greater impact on people that a foreign holiday.

Unlimited movment of people will have devasting impact on the welfare of people in the UK plus all sorts of other issues.

If a large population is a cause for economic concern why is China, the soon-to-be super power of world ?

A super power that will make Amercian hegemony look like a new born child with a cold.

Why is that exactly ?

The way forward is to promote low birth rates for a sustainable world vigorously but at the same time offer employment to grown adults who can work, allowing your economy an immediate respite without having to pay for the education for that adult. If we don't we'll have to endure a dirty cheap pound or massive cuts to pensions as the only other solution because of the bank job we unfortunately had done to us in 2008, leaving us slightly cash poor.

We can ride that stupid loss relatively easily with immigration, without it, it means we will half our holiday fun and some and/or all become much poorer in old age.

Brexit was a stupid vote into the unknown, now led by a woman that privately agreed it was a bad idea in the first place, egged on by a blond bully who wasn't really sure himself whether it was a wise endevour.

Complete nonsense.

CLAPTON

padington wrote: »

If a large population is a cause for economic concern why is China, the soon-to-be super power of world ?

A super power that will make Amercian hegemony look like a new born child with a cold.

Why is that exactly ?

China has a lower per capita income than the UK
and any even lower standard of living

China has a somewhat larger land mass than the UK too.

The way forward is to promote low birth rates for a sustainable world vigorously but at the same time offer employment to grown adults who can work, allowing your economy an immediate respite without having to pay for the education for that adult. If we don't we'll have to endure a dirty cheap pound or massive cuts to pensions as the only other solution because of the bank job we unfortunately had done to us in 2008, leaving us slightly cash poor.

no moral compass there : just naked greed but very consist with your tory outlook.

We can ride that stupid loss relatively easily with immigration, without it, it means we will half our holiday fun and some and/or all become much poorer in old age.

immigration has made us poorer, giving us worse housing, worse access to NHS, worse transport but more coffee shops and restaurants.

Brexit was a stupid vote for both of the latter led by a woman that privately agreed it was a bad idea, egged on by a blond bully who wasn't really sure himself which way was best.

Complete nonsense.

I accept you hate the people of this country that don't agree with you, I see that as your problem and not mine.

mrginge

padington wrote: »

Until Brexit came along we enjoyed the fifth biggest economy in the world. Employment almost full. Benefits generous. Health and education free. Culture often free. Maybe the most influential country in regards to soft power, the world over.

People prepared to lose their life to get here.

What more do you want ?

You have no idea how lucky we had it. Not now though, storm clouds for everyone are gathering because of an entitlement culture and nasty prejudice to others that will make us and our partners poorer because of this Brexsh*t.

Well done, twits.

Well this is mainly a rant which is nothing to do with the question being asked.

You stated that free movement was good for poor people.
I asked you why it was good for poor British people.
You don't appear to be able to answer that question.

Still I suppose that's to be expected since Labour in general is also completely unable to address this point.

padington

Allowing people to work together on projects they want and not restricting them geographically makes the best teams which make the best outcomes. Free movement of people is a great thing. China is strong because it is such a large population which is free to travel and work. They have have more glory years than we could dream off and more to come.

If hobbling people made the world richer we would restrict people to work only in their post code. It doesn't work. Restricting movement just raises the costs of products because the worse person makes a worse product.

mrginge

padington wrote: »

Allowing people to work together on projects they want and not restricting them geographically makes the best teams which make the best outcomes. Free movement of people is a great thing. China is strong because it is such a large population which is free to travel and work. They have have more glory years than we could dream off and more to come.

If hobbling people made the world richer we would restrict people to work only in their post code. It doesn't work. Restricting movement just raises the costs of products because the worse person makes a worse product.

So your response to the alienated and disenfranchised poor of Britain is to point them in the direction of China as the model for their future economic prosperity.

Personally I'm not sure if that's going to swing the electorate towards a labour government...

wotsthat

I never knew so many Tory voters wanted to end freedom of movement for the benefit of the alienated, disenfranchised poor of the UK. I always thought it was because they didn't like foreigners.

Heartwarming.

mrginge

wotsthat wrote: »

I never knew so many Tory voters wanted to end freedom of movement for the benefit of the alienated, disenfranchised poor of the UK. I always thought it was because they didn't like foreigners.

Heartwarming.

An interesting contribution, although slightly presumptive and stereotypical.

Can you offer any insight into how the ability to move countries for work can benefit poor British people who...

a. Can't afford to
B. Can't speak the language
C. Receive more in low pay/benefits here than they would elsewhere

This is after all the crux of labours problem isn't it ?

CLAPTON

padington wrote: »

Allowing people to work together on projects they want and not restricting them geographically makes the best teams which make the best outcomes. Free movement of people is a great thing. China is strong because it is such a large population which is free to travel and work. They have have more glory years than we could dream off and more to come.

If hobbling people made the world richer we would restrict people to work only in their post code. It doesn't work. Restricting movement just raises the costs of products because the worse person makes a worse product.

I'm sure there is a argument that says the free movement of people would improve the economic prospects of a alrge number of people, would reduce the prospects of other but may improve the overall average.
One might expect a more even distribution of incomes and so
people of the UK would almost cerainly be much poorer as a result.
Even that presupposes that no other practical matters would affect the outcomes. Differences of political systems, religions, culture, language, legal systems etc would have enormous impacts on the outturns : In my view, if such a scheme was implemented at the current time, there would be wars, killings and the end result would be the exact opposite.