Stop voting for fucking Tories

[sturginho]

Wholesome apology in front of the select committee it is then. Grave disposition, dressed in funereal black throughout and absolutely NO laughing.

That'll learn em.

And a car crash interview with LK don't forget!

[Insane_Homer]

IMG_20231220_181947_049.jpg (101.58 KiB) Viewed 2657 times

[fishfoodie]

Of course the ultimate irony in this is that the overwhelming majority of Unionists agree with the Irish Government in this, & the legislation is a solo run by the ERG scum. There is zero support for this legislation in NI, but when did anyone in Tory land ever give a fuck about that ?

Ireland is to sue the UK over its attempt to halt inquests, civil cases and criminal prosecutions for crimes during Northern Ireland’s Troubles.

Leo Varadkar, the taoiseach of Ireland, said on Wednesday that Dublin would launch an inter-state case against the UK’s so-called legacy legislation under the European convention on human rights.

“It is something that we’re genuinely doing with a sense of regret, and would prefer not to be in this position, but we did make a commitment to survivors in Northern Ireland and to the families of victims that we would stand by them,” the taoiseach said.

The Irish government would seek a judicial review on the basis of legal advice that the legislation breached the convention on human rights, said Varadkar.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/ ... legacy-act

[C69]

IMG_20231220_181947_049.jpg

What's he said about inflation?

[Insane_Homer]

IMG_20231220_181947_049.jpg

What's he said about inflation?

The plan is working which puts more money in all our pockets

[fishfoodie]

IMG_20231220_181947_049.jpg

What's he said about inflation?

The plan is working which puts more money in all our pockets

For once a Tory being honest with the electorate !



..... as long as you remember that, "our", is referring to Tory MPs & their donors ....

[Biffer]

IMG_20231220_181947_049.jpg

What's he said about inflation?

The main reason for inflation coming down is decreasing energy prices. Many other things still have high level inflation. When energy pricing stops falling, inflation will increase again, probably later next year.

There’s a structural problem with inflation globally. It was constrained by two key things over the last decade or two - shale gas coming into the market in the US, which choked back energy prices, and the growth of China, which injected a huge amount of low cost labour into the global marketplace. Both of those effects are over, and the signs of increasing inflation were already there prior to Russia invading Ukraine, but have been hidden by the effect of that. You can check this if you want - for example the gas price was already double its long term average in the first half of 2021.

Inflation will not return to the historically low levels we saw for most of the early part of the 21st century.

[Hal Jordan]

Wholesome apology in front of the select committee it is then. Grave disposition, dressed in funereal black throughout and absolutely NO laughing.

That'll learn em.

And a car crash interview with LK don't forget!

Lessons will also have been learnt, no doubt.

[sockwithaticket]

I just read a little more about Mone's business past
- making false claims about celebrities like Julia Roberts wearing her bras in films
- launching a weight loss pill claiming to have undertaken clinical trials, then, when that lie was exposed, that customers had filled out a questionnaire on the results seen from using the drug. Those responses were lost. In the digital age.
- launching a crypto-currency that spectacularly failed
- aborted property development in Dubai

What I can't find, however, is the reason given for elevating her to the lords. I'm sure it was part of the cash for honours scandal, but putting her name and Houe Of Lords into search engines at the moment just gives you page upon page of opinion pieces understandably stating that she should have her title stripped.

[tabascoboy]

Ignorant or just plain gaslighting?

Junior Doctor is a title given to fully qualified Doctors who are either in a 2 year clinical foundation, or have not yet specialised and so are supervised by Consultants in their area of practice. They make up 48% of Doctors in England and could have a decade of experience.

https://fullfact.org/health/what-junior-doctor/

[dpedin]

Ignorant or just plain gaslighting?

Junior Doctor is a title given to fully qualified Doctors who are either in a 2 year clinical foundation, or have not yet specialised and so are supervised by Consultants in their area of practice. They make up 48% of Doctors in England and could have a decade of experience.

https://fullfact.org/health/what-junior-doctor/

I cant work out if she is just thick or if she was trying to wind the docs up?

You can have a Junior Doctor who has done a 5 years undergraduate degree, 2 years Foundation training during which they attain their full registration with the GMC, 2-3 years of core training in something like medical or surgical specialities and then be 4-5+ years into specialty training in a recognised sub specialty ie neurosurgery, cardiac surgery. Some may take time out to do a MD/PhD or even a managerial qualification. Others may do a further year of study once they qualify as a consultant in order to do highly specialized training as a Post CCT Clinical Fellow from an expert before getting their first consultant job. Finally some might have taken time out to get work experience abroad in US or Australia or even with a charity such as Medicine Sans Frontiers. So some who eventually get their first consultant job may have spent 15-20 years of study and getting experience first.

Atkins is just a twat. Sure every patient must legally have a named consultant who is ultimately responsible for their care but in reality the majority of that care will be delivered by highly qualified and well trained junior doctors. Without these guys the NHS would collapse. To make them sound like YTS trainees is just ignorant and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the medical training process.

Does this mean we call all MPs who are not in Cabinet 'trainees' regardless of how long they have been an MP and what their previous work experience might be? I also suspect the average Junior Doctors has more qualifications than the average MP! I also suspect the average training pathway to becoming an MP is a lot shorter and less onerous than the medical pathway - apparently giving Boris a blow job got you into the cabinet, HoL or even marriage!

[petej]

Ignorant or just plain gaslighting?

Junior Doctor is a title given to fully qualified Doctors who are either in a 2 year clinical foundation, or have not yet specialised and so are supervised by Consultants in their area of practice. They make up 48% of Doctors in England and could have a decade of experience.

https://fullfact.org/health/what-junior-doctor/

Intentional gas lighting. The likelihood of most the public knowing what training a junior doctor has had is bugger all.

[sockwithaticket]

I cant work out if she is just thick or if she was trying to wind the docs up?

Neither. Someone in the Tory comms straegy team knows that a lot of the public 1) Don't have as much sympathy for doctor's strikes as some others and 2) Don't actually know that junior doctor refers to fully trained and sometimes quite experienced staff. The perception that junior doctors are young and inexperienced also helps to play into generational conflict.

They're deliberately trying to put it out there that junior docs, being young and inexperienced, are being particularly greedy with their pay demands.

Facts don't matter, perception is all.

[ASMO]

I just read a little more about Mone's business past
- making false claims about celebrities like Julia Roberts wearing her bras in films
- launching a weight loss pill claiming to have undertaken clinical trials, then, when that lie was exposed, that customers had filled out a questionnaire on the results seen from using the drug. Those responses were lost. In the digital age.
- launching a crypto-currency that spectacularly failed
- aborted property development in Dubai

What I can't find, however, is the reason given for elevating her to the lords. I'm sure it was part of the cash for honours scandal, but putting her name and Houe Of Lords into search engines at the moment just gives you page upon page of opinion pieces understandably stating that she should have her title stripped.

She probably noshed off the bumblecunt in exchange for a peerage.

[sockwithaticket]

I just read a little more about Mone's business past
- making false claims about celebrities like Julia Roberts wearing her bras in films
- launching a weight loss pill claiming to have undertaken clinical trials, then, when that lie was exposed, that customers had filled out a questionnaire on the results seen from using the drug. Those responses were lost. In the digital age.
- launching a crypto-currency that spectacularly failed
- aborted property development in Dubai

What I can't find, however, is the reason given for elevating her to the lords. I'm sure it was part of the cash for honours scandal, but putting her name and Houe Of Lords into search engines at the moment just gives you page upon page of opinion pieces understandably stating that she should have her title stripped.

She probably noshed off the bumblecunt in exchange for a peerage.

That's the other, younger blonde. Mone was elevated on Cameron's watch.

[petej]

I cant work out if she is just thick or if she was trying to wind the docs up?

Neither. Someone in the Tory comms straegy team knows that a lot of the public 1) Don't have as much sympathy for doctor's strikes as some others and 2) Don't actually know that junior doctor refers to fully trained and sometimes quite experienced staff. The perception that junior doctors are young and inexperienced also helps to play into generational conflict.

They're deliberately trying to put it out there that junior docs, being young and inexperienced, are being particularly greedy with their pay demands.

Facts don't matter, perception is all.

The issue is the fixed costs of living and tax has just go up so quickly and a lot of generations are very insulated from it. With a bit of money and wealth you can really shield yourself from things like energy (including transportation) and housing costs.

Just massive arseholes playing on conflicts between generations and classes to line their own and their mates pockets.

[SaintK]

I cant work out if she is just thick or if she was trying to wind the docs up?

Neither. Someone in the Tory comms straegy team knows that a lot of the public 1) Don't have as much sympathy for doctor's strikes as some others and 2) Don't actually know that junior doctor refers to fully trained and sometimes quite experienced staff. The perception that junior doctors are young and inexperienced also helps to play into generational conflict.

They're deliberately trying to put it out there that junior docs, being young and inexperienced, are being particularly greedy with their pay demands.

Facts don't matter, perception is all.

Not quite.

The BMA has confirmed that it does not like the term “junior doctors”, and that it prefers the term “doctors in training” – although it also says this is still not ideal.

[sockwithaticket]

I cant work out if she is just thick or if she was trying to wind the docs up?

Neither. Someone in the Tory comms straegy team knows that a lot of the public 1) Don't have as much sympathy for doctor's strikes as some others and 2) Don't actually know that junior doctor refers to fully trained and sometimes quite experienced staff. The perception that junior doctors are young and inexperienced also helps to play into generational conflict.

They're deliberately trying to put it out there that junior docs, being young and inexperienced, are being particularly greedy with their pay demands.

Facts don't matter, perception is all.

Not quite.

The BMA has confirmed that it does not like the term “junior doctors”, and that it prefers the term “doctors in training” – although it also says this is still not ideal.

Yes I've seen them rush that out as a defence. Junior doctors has still been the common terminology in the press for the duration of the disputes and the Tories have shown zero inclination to bow the BMA on anything in recent times, so I still subscribe to a more nefarious and cynical reading the situation.

The government have long since surrendered any benefit of the doubt.

[Paddington Bear]

I cant work out if she is just thick or if she was trying to wind the docs up?

Neither. Someone in the Tory comms straegy team knows that a lot of the public 1) Don't have as much sympathy for doctor's strikes as some others and 2) Don't actually know that junior doctor refers to fully trained and sometimes quite experienced staff. The perception that junior doctors are young and inexperienced also helps to play into generational conflict.

They're deliberately trying to put it out there that junior docs, being young and inexperienced, are being particularly greedy with their pay demands.

Facts don't matter, perception is all.

The issue is the fixed costs of living and tax has just go up so quickly and a lot of generations are very insulated from it. With a bit of money and wealth you can really shield yourself from things like energy (including transportation) and housing costs.

Just massive arseholes playing on conflicts between generations and classes to line their own and their mates pockets.

Yes there’s a lot of things in this country atm that are a bit like those high pitched noise emitters to scare off foxes - you can’t hear the alarm if you’re over a certain age.

[Hal Jordan]

The Brains Trust have realised that the £38.7k no foreigners rule was as well thought out as all their other ideas, and have dropped the threshold to £29k. Still up £10.4k from the current limit of £18.6k, mind you.

[Openside]

IMG_20231220_181947_049.jpg

God she is nauseating (and I know her well)

[weegie01]

I'm a British citizen and I effectively can't return to the UK with my British son and foreign wife. Meanwhile, foreign students can bring their spouses to the UK. Imagine my resentment.

What? How can your wife not get in based on being your wife? I was under the impression genuine marriage was an automatic entry.

Nope.

This is what these fuckers have done. They’ve slipped all this stuff in and they know the vast majority aren’t paying attention to it (because why would anyone?).

And all of a sudden we find out we have a much more racist, aggressively authoritarian country than we used to have.

I raise this again due to an article showing just how bonkers this is.

It turns out that the number of spouse visas is trivial in the grand scheme of things, and that there is no schedule as to when the new restrictions will be brought in other than incrementally from the Spring, starting at £29k.

Perhaps I am naive, but I would have though that if there was one group the proverbial man on the Clapham omnibus would agree was reasonable to allow easily into the country are bona fide spouses of UK citizens.

This just seems mad to me. The impact will be minor, the damage to those affected could be huge, with little obvious politcal benefit.

What am I missing? Where is the perceived upside?

[Tichtheid]

What am I missing? Where is the perceived upside?

I think if you widen your eyes into a mad stare, bare your teeth and bellow "STOP THE BOATS" it all makes sense.

[dpedin]

What am I missing? Where is the perceived upside?

I think if you widen your eyes into a mad stare, bare your teeth and bellow "STOP THE BOATS" it all makes sense.

Whilst waving a tattered upside down Union Jack with with one hand and a pint of bitter in your other hand and a tatty plastic Union Jack hat atop your shiny bald chubby head?

[SaintK]

Not in my backyard thanks!

The prime minister said in March that he was “showing leadership” by including the Catterick Garrison barracks in his Richmond constituency in North Yorkshire on a list of sites to be repurposed to accommodate thousands of migrants. The site was due to be used as a general accommodation site for asylum seekers who would not be detained and would be free to come and go …

However, The Times has learnt that Sunak has ordered the Home Office no longer to use it as a large-scale asylum facility.

A government spokesman confirmed that the Catterick barracks had been assessed as unsuitable for a large asylum facility and that the government was reviewing “alternative uses for the location”.

[Paddington Bear]

What? How can your wife not get in based on being your wife? I was under the impression genuine marriage was an automatic entry.

Nope.

This is what these fuckers have done. They’ve slipped all this stuff in and they know the vast majority aren’t paying attention to it (because why would anyone?).

And all of a sudden we find out we have a much more racist, aggressively authoritarian country than we used to have.

I raise this again due to an article showing just how bonkers this is.

It turns out that the number of spouse visas is trivial in the grand scheme of things, and that there is no schedule as to when the new restrictions will be brought in other than incrementally from the Spring, starting at £29k.

Perhaps I am naive, but I would have though that if there was one group the proverbial man on the Clapham omnibus would agree was reasonable to allow easily into the country are bona fide spouses of UK citizens.

This just seems mad to me. The impact will be minor, the damage to those affected could be huge, with little obvious politcal benefit.

What am I missing? Where is the perceived upside?

There are a few major sources of immigration that are having clear negatives in a macro context:
- students at low ranking universities
- the massive increase in dependents of students, the vast majority being from a select group of third world countries
- postgrad students on cheap masters to stay on low pay for three years
- care home workers who can leave the industry rapidly
- care home dependents

How they then stumbled upon spouses as the big issue christ knows. They could solve the genuine issues really quite quickly if they grasped the nettle, then move on to ensuring rapists etc actually get deported, and the whole sting would be taken away. Instead we just get more flailing

[I like neeps]

Jeez

[sefton]

Jeez

That can’t be right, you can feed a family of 6 for 30p.

[Uncle fester]

Jeez

Related
https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... dApp_Other

What the Dickens

[Sandstorm]

(At Sefton, not the Black Market food shame)

[fishfoodie]

So on the insane new immigration rules.

Am I the only person who sees the obvious consequence of promising to ramp up minimum household income, as inevitably causing a rush next year, as companies & individuals race to get in on the lower incomes ?

So instead of reducing immigration before the GE, it's almost certain to accelerate it !

[shereblue]

They would be victimised to appease the racists but I'd love to see an immigrants strike.

To teach the thick "natives" a lesson. Leave all the work instead to the natives who are too lazy or thick to undertake the unpleasant or skilled work from which they themselves benefit. A lesson especially to those racist natives who have the gall to complain it is the immigrants who are taking up their hospital beds rather than thanking them for saving their feckless arses.

The present situation is only chaotic because much needed vacancies for the economy and public services can only be fulfilled by immigration whilst the Government panders to anti-immigrant lowlife.

If business wants to fill vacancies then "the market" will be best at doing that. It does not need a heavy layer of central government and civil servants to interfere. Let alone a Government that is constantly changing its policy according to party political calculation. Poor civil servants, I say.

But how to control immigration for those concerned with numbers?

Well the EU Single Market of course. Back in 2016, EU Single Market migrants who were recorded as a net fiscal benefit to the UK, filled roughly 1/2 of the vacancies that native Brits (who were recorded as a net fiscal burden) could not.

The other 1/2 of the unfilled vacancies were filled by non-EU migrants. Thankfully in my book. However, let it be noted that the non-EU migrant group was was a significant net fiscal burden on the UK.

I am very grateful to all immigrants but the present system is interventionist, fiscally expensive, increases migrant numbers and also adds to business costs whilst not meeting its recruitment needs.

[sockwithaticket]

I don't accept the idea that UK people don't, become nurses or carers because they're feckless and lazy. For the majority they simply pursue work that actually pays a UK living wage.

One of the disgraceful things about our migration situation is that we're using migrants to plug gaps in low paying, gruelling positions often for less than even a UK resident would be paid to do the same (up to 20% believe). Combined with the Ts & Cs that bring many over for these shortage positions it's little short of indentured labour.

My parents had a Nepalese woman at their church whom the parishoners were helping to house because her wages as a carer make it very difficult to rent in the local area. To her, in Nepal, the money seemed wonderful, but she lacked any context for the UK cost of living and has told them that if she'd known she wouldn't have bothered crossing the world to be here.

Using migrants as we do continues to suppress wages in these sectors and make them less attractive to the native population while also victimising migrants. It's the absolute worst.

[shereblue]

I don't accept the idea that UK people don't, become nurses or carers because they're feckless and lazy. For the majority they simply pursue work that actually pays a UK living wage.

One of the disgraceful things about our migration situation is that we're using migrants to plug gaps in low paying, gruelling positions often for less than even a UK resident would be paid to do the same (up to 20% believe). Combined with the Ts & Cs that bring many over for these shortage positions it's little short of indentured labour.

My parents had a Nepalese woman at their church whom the parishoners were helping to house because her wages as a carer make it very difficult to rent in the local area. To her, in Nepal, the money seemed wonderful, but she lacked any context for the UK cost of living and has told them that if she'd known she wouldn't have bothered crossing the world to be here.

Using migrants as we do continues to suppress wages in these sectors and make them less attractive to the native population while also victimising migrants. It's the absolute worst.

Paying workers in the care sector a better wage would in many ways be the right thing to do. Fairer for your parents' Nepalese parishioner and more encouraging for native carers. With many wonderful exceptions, I don't believe Brits are well disposed to the care sector - regardless of pay. It's partly cultural and perhaps partly economic but the sense of family and respect for elders isn't quite so strong here. There's also the question of work ethic and, I'm sorry, but here I'd back an Eastern European over a native any day of the week.

If a Rumanian or Pole felt shafted and had no other options, they'd be straight on the Easyjet back when they came or elsewhere in the EU. Credit to your parents and their parish. I do understand the indentured labour point there.

But what sickens me is our feckless government. How often have I heard Brexiters arguing the unfairness point and let's increase wages by cutting EU immigration.
It's unfair on the poorer countries who train our carers. Absolute crocodile tears. One of the 2019 election promises - long since erased from all agendas - was reform of the care sector with the (misleadingly) floated idea of limiting elders' personal contributions to £100,000, excluding the accommodation aspect.

Given the cost of nursing care in London and the Home Counties is about £90k per annum, wiping out the estates of small time home owners and given the bankruptcies of local authorities whose major drain is social care funding for those who can't afford £90k p.a., is the Brexiters' plan to increase council tax MASSIVELY and wipe out older voters' savings in 2 or 3 years of care to pay higher wages?

No. The circle is NEVER squared. We hate immigrants. We love lower tax. We favour high wages. Yeah, sure. Sometimes decisions need to be made but the Single Market is the easiest and most moderate solution to partly meeting labour market needs. IMO.

[Paddington Bear]

I’m sorry, the idea that British people can’t/won’t work in care/related jobs is utter bollocks, would be called out as racism if directed elsewhere and tends to have more than an element of class snobbery about it

[_Os_]

I don't accept the idea that UK people don't, become nurses or carers because they're feckless and lazy. For the majority they simply pursue work that actually pays a UK living wage.

One of the disgraceful things about our migration situation is that we're using migrants to plug gaps in low paying, gruelling positions often for less than even a UK resident would be paid to do the same (up to 20% believe). Combined with the Ts & Cs that bring many over for these shortage positions it's little short of indentured labour.

My parents had a Nepalese woman at their church whom the parishoners were helping to house because her wages as a carer make it very difficult to rent in the local area. To her, in Nepal, the money seemed wonderful, but she lacked any context for the UK cost of living and has told them that if she'd known she wouldn't have bothered crossing the world to be here.

Using migrants as we do continues to suppress wages in these sectors and make them less attractive to the native population while also victimising migrants. It's the absolute worst.

I don't think it's this simple. No one in the sector I've spoken to says wages are the issue, no one working in the sector (rather than a random Tory MPs) I've seen interviewed on TV says wages in the sector are the issue. They all say the job is about skills and being able to do it, they all reject that it's unskilled. In other words they think if wages went up it's liable to mean attracting the wrong type of person. A tip for sorting those who know what they're talking about on this subject from those who don't, the conversation is basically about agency staff, but care teams need a RGN/RMN on the staff. Obviously a fully trained and experienced nurse isn't low skilled. As Tory attempts to control immigration using salary levels have shown "high skilled =/= high paid", hence all the opt outs the Tories are forced into making. There's also the small matter of the UK being basically at full employment now (anyone willing and able to work is doing so). Then the other small matter of if the goal is to increase wages without increasing productivity, then you get inflation, which destroys the value of the wage increase in any case.

There's also a general lack of honesty about immigration and the structure of the UK economy. The UK economy depends on immigrants, it literally requires immigrants to meet labour demands. As the youngest baby boomers fully retire over the next 5-10 years and all baby boomers move into an age cohort that needs more medical care, this labour need will grow. Without any productivity increases each retiring person needs to be replaced by a new worker for the economy to remain stagnant (in a population that's top heavy this isn't happening without immigrants). Tories do seem fond of demanding everything be a market (in other words Thatcherism), then get upset about what the market produces and then demand an autarkic economy with no immigrants.

There's no easy answer here, and almost certainly no answer that doesn't include immigrants. If you don't personally know someone who wants to work in a care home and isn't already, then you shouldn't think there's some vast pool of labour available in the UK. The "pay them more money" trick doesn't work, a lot of people could make more money in the building industry (plumber, electrician, etc) than working in an office, not much of a rush to retrain though.

[Paddington Bear]

How do you get to ‘Tories demand no immigrants’ when the Tories gave out 1.2 million visas last year?

[_Os_]

How do you get to ‘Tories demand no immigrants’ when the Tories gave out 1.2 million visas last year?

This gets a bit difficult because it's such a large tent. But imagine a Farage type or one of the usual suspects on the Tory back benches (Bill Cash maybe). How it works is they have an ideal vision of what they want the UK to be that's all a bit woolly and not entirely thought through, but it's basically an idealised version of the 1950s that doesn't include immigration. To get to this idealised endpoint they will demand only using Thatcherism, they demand everything be a market, if anyone says anything should be nationalised they're condemned as a commie. The contradiction being that migration switched from being net emigration to net immigration under Thatcher who opened up the UK labour market to competition (another Tory lie, they blame Blair but he very obviously didn't change Thatcher's economy much).

Reading Conservative Home these days is quite fun. They demand all sorts of interventions in the UK economy a lot of it connected to education, then demand low taxes and a small state. They're not good at joined up coherent thinking. That's how a party that's obviously anti-immigrant (as any legal immigrant in the UK knows), has also run an economy and immigration system that meant millions of new immigrants.

[sockwithaticket]

I don't accept the idea that UK people don't, become nurses or carers because they're feckless and lazy. For the majority they simply pursue work that actually pays a UK living wage.

One of the disgraceful things about our migration situation is that we're using migrants to plug gaps in low paying, gruelling positions often for less than even a UK resident would be paid to do the same (up to 20% believe). Combined with the Ts & Cs that bring many over for these shortage positions it's little short of indentured labour.

My parents had a Nepalese woman at their church whom the parishoners were helping to house because her wages as a carer make it very difficult to rent in the local area. To her, in Nepal, the money seemed wonderful, but she lacked any context for the UK cost of living and has told them that if she'd known she wouldn't have bothered crossing the world to be here.

Using migrants as we do continues to suppress wages in these sectors and make them less attractive to the native population while also victimising migrants. It's the absolute worst.

I don't think it's this simple. No one in the sector I've spoken to says wages are the issue, no one working in the sector (rather than a random Tory MPs) I've seen interviewed on TV says wages in the sector are the issue. They all say the job is about skills and being able to do it, they all reject that it's unskilled. In other words they think if wages went up it's liable to mean attracting the wrong type of person. A tip for sorting those who know what they're talking about on this subject from those who don't, the conversation is basically about agency staff, but care teams need a RGN/RMN on the staff. Obviously a fully trained and experienced nurse isn't low skilled. As Tory attempts to control immigration using salary levels have shown "high skilled =/= high paid", hence all the opt outs the Tories are forced into making. There's also the small matter of the UK being basically at full employment now (anyone willing and able to work is doing so). Then the other small matter of if the goal is to increase wages without increasing productivity, then you get inflation, which destroys the value of the wage increase in any case.

There's also a general lack of honesty about immigration and the structure of the UK economy. The UK economy depends on immigrants, it literally requires immigrants to meet labour demands. As the youngest baby boomers fully retire over the next 5-10 years and all baby boomers move into an age cohort that needs more medical care, this labour need will grow. Without any productivity increases each retiring person needs to be replaced by a new worker for the economy to remain stagnant (in a population that's top heavy this isn't happening without immigrants). Tories do seem fond of demanding everything be a market (in other words Thatcherism), then get upset about what the market produces and then demand an autarkic economy with no immigrants.

There's no easy answer here, and almost certainly no answer that doesn't include immigrants. If you don't personally know someone who wants to work in a care home and isn't already, then you shouldn't think there's some vast pool of labour available in the UK. The "pay them more money" trick doesn't work, a lot of people could make more money in the building industry (plumber, electrician, etc) than working in an office, not much of a rush to retrain though.

Where you've got jobs that have tough conditions and low pay, which includes teaching and boy are the missed recruitment targets there setting up a colossal problem, a lot of the time the only variable that can really move is pay. Some aspects to the conditions can improve if enough staff are recruited, but that comes after making it a more attractive proposition in the first place and primarily that means pay.

With something like nursing, there is obviously training required and increasing wages substantially won't suddenly make a huge number of nurses available, although it would stop the bleed of existing staff and possibly tempt back many of those who've left in recent years to do things like retail because the money was comparable for less demanding work. The other aspect to raising the wage is to make it an attractive thing to train to do in the first place. That's a longer term thing and immigration has to be part of the immediate fix to our nursing deficit, but we can't necessarily rely on being able to plunder the developing world in perpetuity for its trained nurses, it needs to be made a career that the native population looks at as being worthwhile beyond it's moral and societal worth.

As for why people don't retrain to become sparkies and plumbers when the money is so good, it's partly because people might not be inclined to that kind of work, but also because the cost of living is so high now that many are sceptical, even scared, of taking a significant backwards step to their earnings even for a couple of years. It's not so bad if you're still in your 20s and don't have much in the way of dependents and responsibilities, but the further along you get the bigger a risk it becomes.

The economy and its priorities needs a total restructure in general with wealth redistribution at the heart of it. It's not a given that this would drive increases, but the level of hand to mouth existence and upward transferral of wealth we see in the UK absolutely disincentivises some of those who are inclined to from having kids. When you can just barely afford yourself, the prospect of bringing another mouth to feed into the equation isn't an enticing one. That's before touching on general existential anxiety about the climate crisis and people weighing up whether it's fair to bring a child into the world now. I'm pretty convinced that more decisive action on climate change would have a positive impact in birth rates as people would see a more hopeful future.

Productivity increases outstripped wages by miles for decades and people saw little to no reward for it and we've seen inflation driven almost solely by corporate greed recently. That's a poor reason to keep refusing to pay people enough that they can exist more comfortably and governments other than the current corporatist, crony capitalists would be looking at regulatory means to bitchslap companies that attempt to engineer further situations where prices jump wages in egregious fashion.

[sockwithaticket]

I don't accept the idea that UK people don't, become nurses or carers because they're feckless and lazy. For the majority they simply pursue work that actually pays a UK living wage.

One of the disgraceful things about our migration situation is that we're using migrants to plug gaps in low paying, gruelling positions often for less than even a UK resident would be paid to do the same (up to 20% believe). Combined with the Ts & Cs that bring many over for these shortage positions it's little short of indentured labour.

My parents had a Nepalese woman at their church whom the parishoners were helping to house because her wages as a carer make it very difficult to rent in the local area. To her, in Nepal, the money seemed wonderful, but she lacked any context for the UK cost of living and has told them that if she'd known she wouldn't have bothered crossing the world to be here.

Using migrants as we do continues to suppress wages in these sectors and make them less attractive to the native population while also victimising migrants. It's the absolute worst.

Paying workers in the care sector a better wage would in many ways be the right thing to do. Fairer for your parents' Nepalese parishioner and more encouraging for native carers. With many wonderful exceptions, I don't believe Brits are well disposed to the care sector - regardless of pay. It's partly cultural and perhaps partly economic but the sense of family and respect for elders isn't quite so strong here. There's also the question of work ethic and, I'm sorry, but here I'd back an Eastern European over a native any day of the week.

If a Rumanian or Pole felt shafted and had no other options, they'd be straight on the Easyjet back when they came or elsewhere in the EU. Credit to your parents and their parish. I do understand the indentured labour point there.

But what sickens me is our feckless government. How often have I heard Brexiters arguing the unfairness point and let's increase wages by cutting EU immigration.
It's unfair on the poorer countries who train our carers. Absolute crocodile tears. One of the 2019 election promises - long since erased from all agendas - was reform of the care sector with the (misleadingly) floated idea of limiting elders' personal contributions to £100,000, excluding the accommodation aspect.

Given the cost of nursing care in London and the Home Counties is about £90k per annum, wiping out the estates of small time home owners and given the bankruptcies of local authorities whose major drain is social care funding for those who can't afford £90k p.a., is the Brexiters' plan to increase council tax MASSIVELY and wipe out older voters' savings in 2 or 3 years of care to pay higher wages?

No. The circle is NEVER squared. We hate immigrants. We love lower tax. We favour high wages. Yeah, sure. Sometimes decisions need to be made but the Single Market is the easiest and most moderate solution to partly meeting labour market needs. IMO.

No disagreement there. I know Labour are gunshy about appearing too pro-Europe given their experience at the last election with the Red Wall and the Brexit years in general, but the quickest and easiest boost to the economy, in all manner of ways besides just migration, is getting as close to our prior relationship with the EU as possible.

We are in a bizarre situation at the moment where we're high tax and low service. Low tax - low service or high tax - high service are meant to be the norm. It's not immediately clear where all the money's been going, although the billions shelled out on failed procurement and projects during covid, for which Mone is currently providing a glimpse of the egregiousness of the mispend/funnelling of fund to mates and donors, hints at it. The public purse being drained without providing services and the upward funnelling of more and more wealth into fewer and fewer hands means there's less money in general for people to pay for things themselves or for the state to raise form them via taxation. And of course the greedflation of the last few years, particularly from utilities companies, has gobbled up tons of money that should've gone into services, but ended up literally just keeping the lights on.