Blah Blah

Now that IS a scary thought.

Interesting.

200m inheritance is not to be sniffed at though. Obviously I'm not American so don't know all the nuances of the American elctoral system but am inclined to agree LondonM that Trump strikes me too as someone who would ignore protcol and rules. He's basically a bully. The White House is no place for him.

Trump had a little help with billions of inherited money to be fair. What I mean LondonM is that the president is beholden to the wishes of the senate etc which is why very little ever changes politically in the USA. It is practically impossible for any president to do anything radical. There also is no real representation of the left in the US political system either. By any measure, it is a system bought off by big business and corporations.

I don't think he'll have any chance against Clinton given that he has alienated just about anyone who is not white and right wing. But the campaign will be nasty for sure. Trump has never been a senator, or held any kind of office. He is going to be the antithesis of everything Clinton is. And just to add, even on the slim chance he does make president, he has no clue of what he will be up against in the senate. He will be kept in line pretty much in the same way Obama was on Medicare.

I always understood an expat to be someone that has moved from your own country to another, and as such being a term to describe the permanent emigration of a (British) national. And the Oxford dictionary seems to agree and adds banishment and exile to that definition.

But isn't expat just a term for an emmigrant as opposed to immigrant?

All good points Joe. There used to be a time where a 40 hour week was standard for everyone with extra hours being classed as overtime. It was a simple arrangement that everyone understood. Now we have buy out contracts and zero hours contracts etc, both of which mostly favour the employer over the employee. The government often cites that some people want zero hours contracts but forgets about those that have no choice but to accept them. Again, lack of job security also plays a part in the employment options of people. So I'd also argue that many of the jobs that immigrants take, aren't secure enough nor pay enough to support say a young family. But I'd also add that in my home, as soon as I and my siblings were old enough, we all got Saturday jobs, and then weekend jobs etc. They were menial jobs but it was impressed upon us by our parents that if we want things, we need to work for them. So parenting also has a role to play. I grew up on a farm, where the work is never done, but I wonder what a child who grows up in a jobless household learns about the world of work.

Quite KK. Often the use of cups for chips etc is to control protion size and as someone posted, to fool you into thinking the portion is bigger than it is. But if any of those things fail to impress, you just don't go there again. There are plenty of places that do offer value for money and serve on plates too :)

Some interesting points. Quick question JoeLeg on hours. The Working Time Directive says that no employee can be forced to work more than 48 hours a week. Some jobs have opt out clauses because they require more than that, but they tend to be higher skilled, higher paid jobs. In addition, every employee must have at least 11 hours off between working shifts, and one day off in every seven. I think there are a lot of employers that flout these laws because their employees don't know their rights. I am sure you abide by them Joe. The only way for workers to protect themselves and make sure that employment law is kept to, is by informing themsleves of their rights and to join unions who have the resources to legally prosecute employers who flout the law. On productivity. There's no doubt there are problems there, and some of those problems are cultural. To be fair there are many under 25's who work very hard, but yes there are also some who expect to walk into well paid work without doing anything for it. Some of that is also the fallout from the culture of 'cradle to grave'. An expectation that the state can provide everything and yes I think sucessive governments, both Labour and Conservative have damaged both the state education system, and failed to keep up apprenticeships, esp in construction. Also, 50% of young people going to University is also setting them up to fail. 50% of new jobs are not at graduate levels, neither in skils nor pay. So again a level of expectation not based on reality. New Labour in their efforts to create a level playing field of educational achievement, created more problems than they solved. And there is no doubt educational standards have fallen, especially in numeracy and literacy. Some universities have returned to entrance exams to figure out just who can actually spell and add up! But it still remains that the top universities are the top universities. I think it's pretty obvious by the age of 14 who is interested in an academic pathway, and who would be better on a vocational one. This idea that all yooung people can reach the same goals is nonsense. We are failing children by filling them with dreams they can never achieve. So I for one would be for the return of apprenticeships at 14, and that might just also save some kids from crime down the line too. Waiting until they are 18 to engage is just too late.

Yeah and changing local demographics has nothing to do with that right? Millions of people moving south over the past 30 years to get jobs has had nothing to do with it also right? And I challenge you to prove that any electrician will work for ?20 a day. Total crap from start to finish Uncleglen.

Being a vegetarian, the idea of eating anything from a chopping board, that might normally house a dripping steak horrifies me.

And you already posted that nonsense on another thread. If workers want to protect rates of pay, they need to unionise and take on employers. It's not the Pole or the Turk (and there are lots of Turkish people already living and working here btw) who set rates of pay, but the employer in a buyers market. Lots of people have been laid off only to see their old jobs readvertise at lower rates of pay, often employing younger people, who are cheaper to employ as well. So they EU are shafting working people are they? Workers have the following protections because of the EU; Health and safety at work: general rights and obligations, workplaces, work equipment, specific risks and vulnerable workers. Equal opportunities for women and men: equal treatment at work, pregnancy, maternity leave, parental leave protection against discrimination based on sex, race, religion, age, disability and sexual orientation. Labour law: part-time work, fixed-term contracts, working hours, employment of young people, informing and consulting employees. Individual EU countries must make sure that their national laws protect these rights laid down by EU employment laws (Directives). And then of course there's the people kept in jobs by the ?200bn of exports to the EU annual. Yeah right, whatever has the EU ever done for working people.

Strong words yes, but given that homes sold under RTB haven't been replaced and people needing those homes have increased I'm just baffled that anyone would think the council should sell them one of those homes so that they can extend theirs! I don't mean to offend Lenka, but Southwark currently has a waiting list of 15,000. Every home is needed and Southwark are building new homes. But Jeremy is right, you can make a request, but it's unlikely Southwark will sell.

These were points made on Question Time, especially in reference to services. And that we currently have 53 trade deals in place, all of which would have to be renegotiated. The more I hear from both sides on this, the more apparent it becomes to me that the whole thing would be a mess to sort out, which could take years, and in the meantime UK business and jobs would suffer to some degree. But at least now the debate is moving on to detail instead of single issue soundbites on things like immigration.

Yes, only a council tenant can buy the council property through RTB. The council will say no to your request to buy. It would be a bit like someone knocking on your door and saying, I like the look of your house, sell it to me! You'd say no, so why do you think you even have the right to ask the council to sell any property they own to you?

Only if we leave the EU completely. Having any kind of trade deal will mean still accepting the free movement of people, as it does for Norway and Switzerland.

Not sure that is true Nigello. There are many points in history where invasion dramatically changed the landscape far more than anything we see now. Infrastructure is the job of government to maintain. If you have sucessive governments that are reactionary, rather than visionary, invest little in infrastructure and services etc, then you get into trouble. Every government since the 80s has known about the increase in life expectancy, has seen increased levels of people living alone and the fragmentation of families, seen the economy become more and more south east centric, and has done little to plan for it, because they believed the free market should solve these problems. The free market doesn't care about anything but profit.

'Why do you need permission to take a picture, on a private road or not?' You can only legally take pictures on private land with the permission of the landowner.

This is true, but it's also worth pointing out that every wave of migrants has faced animosity since the dawn of time.

The article is a little out of date Louisa, we now pay 7bn more than we get back, not 10bn, but interesting all the same. I still think the most likely deal would be along the same lines of Norway, Switzerland etc and that would place us around 20bn worse off.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > er, no. we'd have a single trade agreement with > the EU like other countries do; and that would be > rushed through by the big beast of Europe as we > are a massive importer of their products and we > run a trade defeceit with them; it would be put > through pretty quickly. No we don't. We have 50 different trade agreements, all of which would have to be renegotiated. And here we go again, this delusion that we are somehow special, more special than Norway and Switzerland.

I think a starting point is demographics. During the 50s and 60s, we had the Malthaus Pyramid theory. We could pay for a welfare system, NHS etc because the proportion of those of working age was more than double the no of people over 65. We also had near full employment with good average rates of pay compared to living costs and higher taxes. The post war boom is probably the only golden period in those terms. And we had immigration then, to fill the jobs surplus and to make sure the working population was high enough to support the rest. Today the proposition is very different. There are almost as many people over 65 as there are in full time work. There were two reasons why New Labour were pro immigration. One was to increase the tax paying workforce, and two was becuse of skills shortages, especially in construction and the NHS. That seems odd doesn't it when we have so many adults of working age not in employment? Skills shortages and too few people of working age in work, are in some ways different problems. And both come from a lack of forward planning. In terms of economics, we have moved from a long term economy to a short term one. With that comes reactionary politics, rather than visionary. It can also be argued that part of the success of the NHS is in the improved health and lifespan of the nation, but those three million extra over 75s (since the 60s) are in turn pushing up the cost of the NHS. We have two options. Either we get the number of people in work up, wages up, and tax receipts up, to restore the Malthaus Pyramid, and that means increasing population along with other things, or we reduce the cost of the welfare state, with all the consequences that brings. The other option is to increase taxes of course (not a popular one with voters). Immigration has huge benefits. But it has become the scapegoat for deeper economic issues that are more to do with changing demographics and the rise of competition from a global economy.

But you miss the core point ???? which is that we won't be able to do single trade deals with individual EU countries, we would have to go through the existing EU treaties on trade deals. If we couldn't agree terms with the EU then we'd refer to the World Trade Organisation tariffs. Either way we will have tariffs to pay, reduced membership costs, and be required to adopt a third of EU regulations. Sheff, your figures are interesting and pretty much in line with what economists estimate would be the extra costs on exports (of between ?18bn and ?50bn in tariffs). You also illustrate perfectly why some aspects of that business would relocate to within the EU to avoid those tariffs.

That a fair point. I found that poll interesting because it broke down aspects rather than just the straight in/out question. The big unknown are the undecideds and whether they will in the end stick with what they know rather voting for change (which is what tends to happen in elections). We shall see in June.