Planet Rugby Forum

Lorthern Nights wrote:

backrow wrote:

Plato'sCave wrote:

backrow wrote: Because they have low costs of living , sharing with 17 others in a small but surprisingly well kept and reasonably priced rental flat in Wanstead

Do they all live 17 to a flat in your mind?

It’s a metaphor you berk, from the point of view of a London landlord who has rented to Europeans

John Bull the builder from Essex has much higher cost of living then Josef from East Ham, and couldn’t survive on 150 a day whereas Josef could. Clear now ?

Yes but you are also discounting the fact that the person paying £50 less now has that to spend on other areas of the economy like eating out and creating more employment for others.

Lorthern Nights wrote:

backrow wrote:

Plato'sCave wrote:

backrow wrote: Because they have low costs of living , sharing with 17 others in a small but surprisingly well kept and reasonably priced rental flat in Wanstead

Do they all live 17 to a flat in your mind?

It’s a metaphor you berk, from the point of view of a London landlord who has rented to Europeans

John Bull the builder from Essex has much higher cost of living then Josef from East Ham, and couldn’t survive on 150 a day whereas Josef could. Clear now ?

Yes but you are also discounting the fact that the person paying £50 less now has that to spend on other areas of the economy like eating out and creating more employment for others.

Lorthern Nights wrote:

SamShark wrote:
It must be devastating to be a hard working Labour MP and see a small group of people at the top of the party trashing your chances of re-election.

I simply don't believe Corbyn's policy is tactical, it's just because he wants Brexit but daren't admit it.

His policy has shown to be totally innefective.

Brexiteers believe he is too remainey and prefer the Brexit party, remainers believe he is too Brexity and prefer Lib Dem/Green.

Labour voters and members are more remainey than Brexity but the leadership just keep pushing the "All northern working people are Brexiteers so we have to keep this policy" argument.

Just so happens i was in a meeting earlier this week with one of David Cameron's inner circle and without getting into the whole does he regret holding the ref debate etc which was asked but doesn't really add anything into the debate. The bit i found interesting was when Corbyn was discussed and how although he has improved dramatically at PMQ's, helped by being opposite May, was that part of the problem he was so bad initially is that he is extremely stuck in his ways and cant change tack when the circumstances change.
They loved it having him there as PMQ's are a bit of guessing game where they know the stuff the opposition should push them on and get their answers ready, with Corbyn they found that he was running a week behind the rest of the country, he had his questions set out on a Monday and it didn't matter what happened in the world up until PMQ's on wednesday he would just stick with his questions and the events they were expecting to be pressed on were not until the following week by which time the public had largely moved on from whatever cockup had happened.

This for me can be seen with his response post EU elections, his message still hasn't changed, its the same old shit just getting regurgitated so unless the powers at be eject him they are going to be an irrelevance, as voters are now abandoning how they traditionally voted, as they are finally waking up to the fact the tories and labour no longer represent them and are looking for alternatives.

Anyway the country is fooked, half want to Remain the other half want to leave, no real middle ground so half the country are going to be pissed no matter what happens.

Lorthern Nights wrote:

SamShark wrote:
It must be devastating to be a hard working Labour MP and see a small group of people at the top of the party trashing your chances of re-election.

I simply don't believe Corbyn's policy is tactical, it's just because he wants Brexit but daren't admit it.

His policy has shown to be totally innefective.

Brexiteers believe he is too remainey and prefer the Brexit party, remainers believe he is too Brexity and prefer Lib Dem/Green.

Labour voters and members are more remainey than Brexity but the leadership just keep pushing the "All northern working people are Brexiteers so we have to keep this policy" argument.

Just so happens i was in a meeting earlier this week with one of David Cameron's inner circle and without getting into the whole does he regret holding the ref debate etc which was asked but doesn't really add anything into the debate. The bit i found interesting was when Corbyn was discussed and how although he has improved dramatically at PMQ's, helped by being opposite May, was that part of the problem he was so bad initially is that he is extremely stuck in his ways and cant change tack when the circumstances change.
They loved it having him there as PMQ's are a bit of guessing game where they know the stuff the opposition should push them on and get their answers ready, with Corbyn they found that he was running a week behind the rest of the country, he had his questions set out on a Monday and it didn't matter what happened in the world up until PMQ's on wednesday he would just stick with his questions and the events they were expecting to be pressed on were not until the following week by which time the public had largely moved on from whatever cockup had happened.

This for me can be seen with his response post EU elections, his message still hasn't changed, its the same old shit just getting regurgitated so unless the powers at be eject him they are going to be an irrelevance, as voters are now abandoning how they traditionally voted, as they are finally waking up to the fact the tories and labour no longer represent them and are looking for alternatives.

Anyway the country is fooked, half want to Remain the other half want to leave, no real middle ground so half the country are going to be pissed no matter what happens.

msp. wrote:

Lorthern Nights wrote:

SamShark wrote:
It must be devastating to be a hard working Labour MP and see a small group of people at the top of the party trashing your chances of re-election.

I simply don't believe Corbyn's policy is tactical, it's just because he wants Brexit but daren't admit it.

His policy has shown to be totally innefective.

Brexiteers believe he is too remainey and prefer the Brexit party, remainers believe he is too Brexity and prefer Lib Dem/Green.

Labour voters and members are more remainey than Brexity but the leadership just keep pushing the "All northern working people are Brexiteers so we have to keep this policy" argument.

Just so happens i was in a meeting earlier this week with one of David Cameron's inner circle and without getting into the whole does he regret holding the ref debate etc which was asked but doesn't really add anything into the debate. The bit i found interesting was when Corbyn was discussed and how although he has improved dramatically at PMQ's, helped by being opposite May, was that part of the problem he was so bad initially is that he is extremely stuck in his ways and cant change tack when the circumstances change.
They loved it having him there as PMQ's are a bit of guessing game where they know the stuff the opposition should push them on and get their answers ready, with Corbyn they found that he was running a week behind the rest of the country, he had his questions set out on a Monday and it didn't matter what happened in the world up until PMQ's on wednesday he would just stick with his questions and the events they were expecting to be pressed on were not until the following week by which time the public had largely moved on from whatever cockup had happened.

This for me can be seen with his response post EU elections, his message still hasn't changed, its the same old shit just getting regurgitated so unless the powers at be eject him they are going to be an irrelevance, as voters are now abandoning how they traditionally voted, as they are finally waking up to the fact the tories and labour no longer represent them and are looking for alternatives.

Anyway the country is fooked, half want to Remain the other half want to leave, no real middle ground so half the country are going to be pissed no matter what happens.

Corbyn has anways been poor at PMQ.. in a Rugby anology he a player who given a 10 m clear run to the try line, would stop and attempt a kick to touch for a lineout instead.. No one is bothered if he makes the kick or not,,

Plato'sCave wrote:

backrow wrote: Because they have low costs of living , sharing with 17 others in a small but surprisingly well kept and reasonably priced rental flat in Wanstead

Do they all live 17 to a flat in your mind?

danny_fitz wrote:

Plato'sCave wrote:

backrow wrote: Because they have low costs of living , sharing with 17 others in a small but surprisingly well kept and reasonably priced rental flat in Wanstead

Do they all live 17 to a flat in your mind?

I appreciate this is very anecdotal but I have quite a few friends involved in the events/hospitality and construction industries and from what I hear that in London at least well over 50% of their casual labour/staffing are east European. The general pattern is that the vast majority are under 30, have no dependents and living in multi share low cost accommodation. They are here to save money and are very savvy financially, they work all hours available, do overtime, work weekends etc. They cook communally, take lunches into work, drink 80p cans of Tyskie beer at home rather then paying £5 plus down the pub. On that basis they can save a tidy some over a few years before heading back home.

backrow wrote:

Plato'sCave wrote:

backrow wrote: Because they have low costs of living , sharing with 17 others in a small but surprisingly well kept and reasonably priced rental flat in Wanstead

Do they all live 17 to a flat in your mind?

It’s a metaphor you berk, from the point of view of a London landlord who has rented to Europeans

John Bull the builder from Essex has much higher cost of living then Josef from East Ham, and couldn’t survive on 150 a day whereas Josef could. Clear now ?

danny_fitz wrote:

Plato'sCave wrote:

backrow wrote: Because they have low costs of living , sharing with 17 others in a small but surprisingly well kept and reasonably priced rental flat in Wanstead

Do they all live 17 to a flat in your mind?

I appreciate this is very anecdotal but I have quite a few friends involved in the events/hospitality and construction industries and from what I hear that in London at least well over 50% of their casual labour/staffing are east European. The general pattern is that the vast majority are under 30, have no dependents and living in multi share low cost accommodation. They are here to save money and are very savvy financially, they work all hours available, do overtime, work weekends etc. They cook communally, take lunches into work, drink 80p cans of Tyskie beer at home rather then paying £5 plus down the pub. On that basis they can save a tidy some over a few years before heading back home.

penguin wrote:

msp. wrote:

Lorthern Nights wrote:

SamShark wrote:
It must be devastating to be a hard working Labour MP and see a small group of people at the top of the party trashing your chances of re-election.

I simply don't believe Corbyn's policy is tactical, it's just because he wants Brexit but daren't admit it.

His policy has shown to be totally innefective.

Brexiteers believe he is too remainey and prefer the Brexit party, remainers believe he is too Brexity and prefer Lib Dem/Green.

Labour voters and members are more remainey than Brexity but the leadership just keep pushing the "All northern working people are Brexiteers so we have to keep this policy" argument.

Just so happens i was in a meeting earlier this week with one of David Cameron's inner circle and without getting into the whole does he regret holding the ref debate etc which was asked but doesn't really add anything into the debate. The bit i found interesting was when Corbyn was discussed and how although he has improved dramatically at PMQ's, helped by being opposite May, was that part of the problem he was so bad initially is that he is extremely stuck in his ways and cant change tack when the circumstances change.
They loved it having him there as PMQ's are a bit of guessing game where they know the stuff the opposition should push them on and get their answers ready, with Corbyn they found that he was running a week behind the rest of the country, he had his questions set out on a Monday and it didn't matter what happened in the world up until PMQ's on wednesday he would just stick with his questions and the events they were expecting to be pressed on were not until the following week by which time the public had largely moved on from whatever cockup had happened.

This for me can be seen with his response post EU elections, his message still hasn't changed, its the same old shit just getting regurgitated so unless the powers at be eject him they are going to be an irrelevance, as voters are now abandoning how they traditionally voted, as they are finally waking up to the fact the tories and labour no longer represent them and are looking for alternatives.

Anyway the country is fooked, half want to Remain the other half want to leave, no real middle ground so half the country are going to be pissed no matter what happens.

Corbyn has anways been poor at PMQ.. in a Rugby anology he a player who given a 10 m clear run to the try line, would stop and attempt a kick to touch for a lineout instead.. No one is bothered if he makes the kick or not,,

From the story above it sounds more like he is a guy pushed into playing 10, when he's normally an 11, who has been given one set move by the coach, and even though there is a gaping hole in the defensive line decides to pass, and follow the plan, rather than play what's in front of him and run through it.

shereblue wrote:

bimboman wrote:

Petej wrote:Daily mail readers are going to be confused with the headline today. They have been told that the reason they can't see a doctor is due to immigrants.

The extra 3 million people in the Uk don’t use doctors , everyone knows that.

The EU migrants were the net fiscal contributors. And a vital component of the medical personnel.

These contributors have dropped off post referendum. Oh dear. Who saw that coming, eh?

msp. wrote: But his play is bizarre like his continued call for a general election, even when it emerging many of his MPs did not vote labour in the last election.

If there was a general election now, the tories would vanish, labour would be hammered.. We would end up with a very strange govenment.

Mixture of SNP, LibDem (as long as Change did not scuttle them) and Brexit with a smaattering of Labour and Tories.

sewa wrote:

backrow wrote:

Nolanator wrote:Many less well-paid jobs in Britain rely on migrant workers because Brits won't do the work.
cf, that apple farmer a few weeks ago.

I was being deliberately daily mail there, fact is that most east euros have much better work ethics than most brits and do the jobs that Kevin and shaz can’t be arsed to, thanks to a myriad of reasons not excluding overly generous welfare state.
Doesn’t alter the fact though that if currently unemployed brits were helping the farmer instead of a field of Romanians , the drain to the state would be less.

But those unemployed Brits will never do the work regardless so its utterly pointless

SamShark wrote:

Your unknown quote there neatly argues my point, it’s only looking at job income v benefits , and nearly doesn’t answer or mention money sent home, pressures on schools where no kid speaks English etc

No it doesn't. If you want a more rounded analysis read the MAC report on immigration which went alongside those figures. On schools it said:

We find no evidence that migration has reduced parental choice in schools or the educational attainment of UK-born children.

On average, children with English as an additional language outperform native English speakers

bimboman wrote:
Taking away easy access to benefits seems to have worked nicely.

Sefton wrote:I see the dog whistle politics has a couple of our regulars barking.

Doggie howsers MD’s by the dozen.

EEA migrants contribute much more to the health service and the provision of social care in financial resources and through work than they consume in services.

EEA workers are an increasing share of the health and social care workforces though these sectors employ greater numbers of non-EEA migrants.

There is no evidence that migration has reduced the quality of healthcare.

Sefton wrote:I see the dog whistle politics has a couple of our regulars barking.

Sandstorm wrote:

bimboman wrote:
Taking away easy access to benefits seems to have worked nicely.

It'll take a generation or more to change, not just a couple of election cycles.

SamShark wrote:

Doggie howsers MD’s by the dozen.

It's inconvenient for you but the Government's report compiled by experts probably trumps your opinion.

On health it said:

EEA migrants contribute much more to the health service and the provision of social care in financial resources and through work than they consume in services.

EEA workers are an increasing share of the health and social care workforces though these sectors employ greater numbers of non-EEA migrants.

There is no evidence that migration has reduced the quality of healthcare.

So basically, if we don't want immigrants, our health and social care services will be damaged not helped.

SamShark wrote:

Doggie howsers MD’s by the dozen.

It's inconvenient for you but the Government's report compiled by experts probably trumps your opinion.

On health it said:

EEA migrants contribute much more to the health service and the provision of social care in financial resources and through work than they consume in services.

EEA workers are an increasing share of the health and social care workforces though these sectors employ greater numbers of non-EEA migrants.

There is no evidence that migration has reduced the quality of healthcare.

So basically, if we don't want EEA immigrants, our health and social care services will be damaged not helped.

bimboman wrote:

SamShark wrote:

Doggie howsers MD’s by the dozen.

It's inconvenient for you but the Government's report compiled by experts probably trumps your opinion.

On health it said:

EEA migrants contribute much more to the health service and the provision of social care in financial resources and through work than they consume in services.

EEA workers are an increasing share of the health and social care workforces though these sectors employ greater numbers of non-EEA migrants.

There is no evidence that migration has reduced the quality of healthcare.

So basically, if we don't want immigrants, our health and social care services will be damaged not helped.

The facts regarding their economic success has almost f uck all to do with the issue everyone faces in the immediate as services become over whelmed.

There’s plenty of evidence that numbers going into the system can Over whelm parts of it.

It’s got nothing to do with “wanting immigrants” as much as “planning for said immigrants” ....

SamShark wrote:

bimboman wrote:

SamShark wrote:

Doggie howsers MD’s by the dozen.

It's inconvenient for you but the Government's report compiled by experts probably trumps your opinion.

On health it said:

EEA migrants contribute much more to the health service and the provision of social care in financial resources and through work than they consume in services.

EEA workers are an increasing share of the health and social care workforces though these sectors employ greater numbers of non-EEA migrants.

There is no evidence that migration has reduced the quality of healthcare.

So basically, if we don't want immigrants, our health and social care services will be damaged not helped.

The facts regarding their economic success has almost f uck all to do with the issue everyone faces in the immediate as services become over whelmed.

There’s plenty of evidence that numbers going into the system can Over whelm parts of it.

It’s got nothing to do with “wanting immigrants” as much as “planning for said immigrants” ....

It's not just talking about economic success, it's about the need for staff.

What evidence do you have for immigrants oberwhelming the NHS?

bimboman wrote:

shereblue wrote:

bimboman wrote:

Petej wrote:Daily mail readers are going to be confused with the headline today. They have been told that the reason they can't see a doctor is due to immigrants.

The extra 3 million people in the Uk don’t use doctors , everyone knows that.

The EU migrants were the net fiscal contributors. And a vital component of the medical personnel.

These contributors have dropped off post referendum. Oh dear. Who saw that coming, eh?

What? The health budget was reduced because foreigners have left ? And being a net contributor has little to do with 3 million more people turning up for services that take a generation of planning.

There’s plenty of evidence that the rise in population is reflected within the use of health services.

shereblue wrote:

bimboman wrote:

shereblue wrote:

bimboman wrote:

Petej wrote:Daily mail readers are going to be confused with the headline today. They have been told that the reason they can't see a doctor is due to immigrants.

The extra 3 million people in the Uk don’t use doctors , everyone knows that.

The EU migrants were the net fiscal contributors. And a vital component of the medical personnel.

These contributors have dropped off post referendum. Oh dear. Who saw that coming, eh?

What? The health budget was reduced because foreigners have left ? And being a net contributor has little to do with 3 million more people turning up for services that take a generation of planning.

The referendum and the growth in associated anti European behaviours by native English is responsible. Don't vote Leave based on false anti-migrant premisses is the simple answer.

As for a generation of planning, you have no idea how the Single Market for labour operates to fill vacancies, apparently preferring Soviet-style 20 year plans.

SamShark wrote:

There’s plenty of evidence that the rise in population is reflected within the use of health services.

Where would it be possible to find this evidence?

backrow wrote:

Lorthern Nights wrote:

backrow wrote:

Plato'sCave wrote:

backrow wrote: Because they have low costs of living , sharing with 17 others in a small but surprisingly well kept and reasonably priced rental flat in Wanstead

Do they all live 17 to a flat in your mind?

It’s a metaphor you berk, from the point of view of a London landlord who has rented to Europeans

John Bull the builder from Essex has much higher cost of living then Josef from East Ham, and couldn’t survive on 150 a day whereas Josef could. Clear now ?

Yes but you are also discounting the fact that the person paying £50 less now has that to spend on other areas of the economy like eating out and creating more employment for others.

I could counter that in several ways:
Creating more employment for Josefs mates
John would also spend that 50 quid difference
John would pay more tax on his higher wage than josef
John unlikely to be sending wads of Fifties back to Poznan

bimboman wrote:

shereblue wrote:

bimboman wrote:

shereblue wrote:

bimboman wrote:
The extra 3 million people in the Uk don’t use doctors , everyone knows that.

The EU migrants were the net fiscal contributors. And a vital component of the medical personnel.

These contributors have dropped off post referendum. Oh dear. Who saw that coming, eh?

What? The health budget was reduced because foreigners have left ? And being a net contributor has little to do with 3 million more people turning up for services that take a generation of planning.

The referendum and the growth in associated anti European behaviours by native English is responsible. Don't vote Leave based on false anti-migrant premisses is the simple answer.

As for a generation of planning, you have no idea how the Single Market for labour operates to fill vacancies, apparently preferring Soviet-style 20 year plans.

What? The lack of doctors planned 15 years ago is brexit related anti European behaviour ?

Either Jozef is going to be out of here and back in Poland when the demand for him here subsides, the pound falters or the economic outlook back home improves. His unenterprising counterpart John is probably going to hang around listlessly here and and have kids occupying the education system and NHS before himself costing the State massively in his retirement.

Or, if Jozef settles, he will work harder than John and, unlike John, will have arrived here ready to work and contribute - with his early state-funded educational and health system years having been generously funded by Poland.

EU migration is flexible and win-win for the UK.

That's the point of a flexible labour market. Foreign trained doctors available here.

Do you not recall that while EU doctors were returning home, your party at the time (before Labour and before Brexitist) was refusing admission to doctors from India and Pakistan?

Trust the market. Not the Government. Not the racists.

bimboman wrote:

Sandstorm wrote:

bimboman wrote:
Taking away easy access to benefits seems to have worked nicely.

It'll take a generation or more to change, not just a couple of election cycles.

Record low unemployment would argue other wise.

Sandstorm wrote:

bimboman wrote:

Sandstorm wrote:

bimboman wrote:
Taking away easy access to benefits seems to have worked nicely.

It'll take a generation or more to change, not just a couple of election cycles.

Record low unemployment would argue other wise.

Meh, if Corbyn gets into #10 he'll give everyone free unicorns and those recent workers will be back on the couch immediately. You won't change their lack of work ethic.

bimboman wrote:

SamShark wrote:

bimboman wrote:

SamShark wrote:

Doggie howsers MD’s by the dozen.

It's inconvenient for you but the Government's report compiled by experts probably trumps your opinion.

On health it said:

EEA migrants contribute much more to the health service and the provision of social care in financial resources and through work than they consume in services.

EEA workers are an increasing share of the health and social care workforces though these sectors employ greater numbers of non-EEA migrants.

There is no evidence that migration has reduced the quality of healthcare.

So basically, if we don't want immigrants, our health and social care services will be damaged not helped.

The facts regarding their economic success has almost f uck all to do with the issue everyone faces in the immediate as services become over whelmed.

There’s plenty of evidence that numbers going into the system can Over whelm parts of it.

It’s got nothing to do with “wanting immigrants” as much as “planning for said immigrants” ....

It's not just talking about economic success, it's about the need for staff.

What evidence do you have for immigrants oberwhelming the NHS?

There’s plenty of evidence that the rise in population is reflected within the use of health services.

The point about 10% of our doctors being from the EU is irrelevant to the short term unplanned arrival of 3 million people.

There’s also quite a bit of evidence that people are unable to do the most basic risk assessment of the health issue and take simple solutions

Essentially, you want the labour, you want the economic growth associated with it but you don't want to provide public services for them and instead divert that extra tax revenue towards caring for our ageing population as they are about 20-25% short of covering themselves in tax put in to services used. Of course you don't tell them that as they are the demographic that vote for you.

Sefton wrote:

bimboman wrote:

SamShark wrote:

There’s plenty of evidence that the rise in population is reflected within the use of health services.

Where would it be possible to find this evidence?

Google “does the health of east Europeans defy the odds”

Bimbo’s idea of evidence.

clementinfrance wrote:I've heard it all now...

Young, healthy, productive tax payers/migrants are the real strain on the poor old NHS.

Not one mention of the burdensome Baby Boomer generation or the cuts in NHS funding.

Classic.

SamShark wrote:[*]

Rugby2023 wrote:

SamShark wrote: Also looks like a conspiracy against Green, Change UK etc.

Shameful.

Never fear, yougov have a perfectly reasonable explanation, they'll tell us later today (when they've worked out what it is)

@YouGov
For those of you asking about our prompting for the Brexit Party in our voting intention surveys, we'll be posting an explainer piece a bit later today

Pollsters only have the accuracy of their polling to maintain their business. It's not a conspiracy - quite surprised you think it is - a bit Trumpy

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1134396993802002433

clementinfrance wrote:I've heard it all now...

Young, healthy, productive tax payers/migrants are the real strain on the poor old NHS.

Not one mention of the burdensome Baby Boomer generation or the cuts in NHS funding.

Classic.