Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Should be an eye opener for the Brexiteers amongst us...
#21
(11-14-2017, 01:29 PM)Derek Hardballs Wrote: The
(11-14-2017, 01:24 PM)Protheroe Wrote: You don't understand my argument then. Let me try again:

Businesses in any sector should not be dependent on subsidy and poor wages to survive.

Is that better?

Those companies all pay the ‘living wage’ which your party implemented. If they don’t then close them down. Raising the aforementioned by two or three pounds won’t suddenly see a rush of Brits wanting to work for the first time.

There's enough happy to do it in Australia for proper money
Reply
#22
(11-14-2017, 09:27 PM)Protheroe Wrote: If we can buy produce far more cheaply than we can produce it, why produce it? 

I'd say improve food security and our trade balance, and help buffer us against food price changes in global markets. We've got the climate and the land, no reason why we should, make use of those fine attributes of this country.
Reply
#23
(11-15-2017, 12:42 PM)chasetownbaggie Wrote: I'd say improve food security and our trade balance, and help buffer us against food price changes in global markets. We've got the climate and the land, no reason why we should, make use of those fine attributes of this country.

Good quality arable land is a steadily reducing resource, Chase; the rate of loss of arable topsoil as a consequence of erosion and run-off is only just being acknowledged by DEFRA and the NFU. Acknowledged but not remedied at this stage; mostly it's a consequence of poor land management practices upstream (usually on higher ground), with open-grazed sheep the biggest culprits. 

It's a direct consequence of fundamental flaws in the allocation of CAP payments and wouldn't be difficult to rectify if there was a will. The real cost of lamb is appalling - and I'm not just talking about what you might pay for some chops at the butchers.
Reply
#24
(11-15-2017, 12:42 PM)chasetownbaggie Wrote:
(11-14-2017, 09:27 PM)Protheroe Wrote: If we can buy produce far more cheaply than we can produce it, why produce it? 

I'd say improve food security and our trade balance, and help buffer us against food price changes in global markets. We've got the climate and the land, no reason why we should, make use of those fine attributes of this country.

If food security is your priority then get an allotment.
Reply
#25
(11-15-2017, 09:52 AM)Protheroe Wrote:
(11-15-2017, 09:11 AM)Derek Hardballs Wrote: Proth has successfully skewed this debate to agriculture. However the crux of the debate is a cultural one. Do unskilled Brits want to work? There are jobs out there but many who use immigration as an excuse are not willing to take those jobs, and the point is you can lift the wage to £10, 15 an hour and they still wouldn’t. Then the question is wtf do you do with those that choose not to work? Do you want to employ someone simply because they have been forced to by reduced benefits? Unless you change the anti-education, welfare dependency mindset of many of those blaming immigration for all their woes I can see nothing but social, political and economic turmoil in the next few years. 

Just like the government won’t have the pesky EU to blame neither will those who blame cheap labour from abroad. As the White Working Class kid who had never worked said to the Polish bank mabager “you work so I don’t have to!”

If people can't be arsed to work, I doubt they'll be arsed to create "social, political and economic turmoil". I also doubt that they could be arsed to vote in the referendum.

There will always be a rump of society who don't want to work. The state should provide a ladder out of relative poverty for those that wish to climb it, for the others it should pay benefits at a subsistence level. Is this really a debate anymore? Let alone the crux of one?

That’s the problem you always seem to either wilfully ignore or dont countenance what effect your policies / economic dogma will likely cause. You think that subsistence level benefits will not increase the levels of crime amongst the feckless and lazy? When it becomes clear they won’t take those jobs allegedly taken from them by migrants? 

The argument social unrest is unlikely sounds rather hollow given we have already had riots during the last ten or so years. Committed by many of those you say wouldn’t be bothered to.
Reply
#26
(11-15-2017, 01:49 PM)Derek Hardballs Wrote: That’s the problem you always seem to either wilfully ignore or dont countenance what effect your policies / economic dogma will likely cause. You think that subsistence level benefits will not increase the levels of crime amongst the feckless and lazy? When it becomes clear they won’t take those jobs allegedly taken from them by migrants? 

The argument social unrest is unlikely sounds rather hollow given we have already had riots during the last ten or so years. Committed by many of those you say wouldn’t be bothered to.

Sorry Dekka, are you suggesting we pay higher than subsistence level benefits to those who don't want to work or in some cases even engage with civilised society?

The riots, if you recall, were excused by the Police's mishandling / shooting of a career criminal. I don't think you can blame any politician for the utter state of some people in some isolated communities.

The essence of my political creed is provide a ladder to those that want to get out of their pit, not throw a bag of money and a bag of chips in to keep them there. If they choose not to climb that ladder, that's completely their choice. If they then choose to commit crime that again is their choice.

Trying to sell higher levels of benefits to those who won't work as some sort of protection racket against crime will be the hardest political sell you'll ever have to make Smile .

Good luck with that one pal.

EDIT: And choice / freedom isn't dogma Dekka. It's basis for any civilised society.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)