Thursday, 29 April 2010

One observation on immigration/movement from the EU....

For what it's worth, prompted by Derbyshire's programme on R5L this morning, a thought about inward immigration from the EU.

The argument, reiterated by Brown to Gillian Duffy yesterday, is that there is equal opportunity for Brits to go to other EU coiuntries to work, and that therefore the economic effect is at least neutral, and probably beneficial.

A Polish woman was interviewed. She had a Masters degree, but admitted that she was financially better off coming here to work in a factory than to work in Poland. Later, when asked about the effect she thought that Poles coming to work here was, she said that British people could (and she asserted, did) go and work in Poland. However, clearly, from her evidence, they would be going to work for lower wages that they could get here. So why would they?

I have nothing intrinsically against movement of people around the world or within the EU, but I would like there to be more openness and truthfulness about the effect of it. It seems obvious to me that if there is a source of workers available who are prepared, even eager, to work for lower wages than would otherwise pertain, it will inevitably produce a downward pressure on wages. I suspect that is in some way an intentional effect of the EU.

Anecdotally, from my experience, it does seem that salaries available from jobs now are relatively much lower than perhaps ten years or so ago. Life is much harder, and was even before the recession.

Monday, 26 April 2010

Try this for size - child care and unemployment

I've been musing, but haven't bothered yet to try some sums on it.

Listening to the R5L phone in this morning, it struck me that quite a number of people blame child care issues for not being able to take available jobs.

This goes against the grain a bit as far as feelings about the public sector goes, but.....

why not put public funding into child care centres and support, and take away that excuse?

Wages for the childcare staff
Infrastructure costs

Less paid out in benefits for out of work mothers
Possible taxes collected from the now in work mothers
Jobs created for the childcare staff

Seems to me that the ratio of childcare staff to children would be less than 1:1, so the net effect would more unemployed back to work than childcare staff funded.


Sunday, 25 April 2010

Pat on the election

More from the indomitable Pat Condell - take a look first....

Now, much of what he says chimes with my own feelings. However, I can't quite agree that individuals really are going to make a difference en-masse, by voting small or independant. You just know that if you do that, enough other people, especially Labour voters, will carry on as before, and we'll end up with Brown back.

I have to believe that Cameron will keep his word, and at the very least, avoid further expatriation of power to the EU and hold referenda on anything along those lines. Hopefully, there will be some repatriation.

Apart from our domestic issues - economy etc., Europe scares me. I don't want to lose my national identity.

Wednesday, 21 April 2010

Excellent exposure of Brown's deceit!

I won't say much about this immediately, but wanted to link to this publication as soon as I could. It's a pity this won't get the exposure it deserves!

Thursday, 15 April 2010

Another example of a Labour double-whammy.....

Apropos of nothing in particular, I offer another post of a little thing I'd like to get off my chest. I was driving back from the supermarket, musing on things I'd read and heard today, and this in particular bugged me as another example of something most people wouldn't think twice about, what with the way people have been turned into unthinking, uncritical sheep by this government.

Do read it, and especially hop down to the comment from nannyknowsbest.

Think about it, and join me in fuming about it. Business is being held back or even destroyed by red tape and stupid or stupidly applied legislation. So the recovery is held back even more. PLUS, to implement these stupid bits of legislation and rules, countless non-jobs, filled by talentless state-dependant jobsworths are created and maintained.

It's just bloody wrong! Labour, begone - and Dave, you'd better deliver!

Monday, 5 April 2010

Cameron's Big Idea/Big Society

Now, cut me some slack, and don't jump on me in a shouty ranty way. I'm opening up and telling my thoughts, which I imagine many people will label as naive.

I've read many blog posts which are scathing and dismissive about what has been reported concerning David Cameron's "Big Idea". The things he's said, and some of the language he's used have been caricatured and sneered at.

Now, I know that in many ways it's become the role of the blogosphere to keep our politicians in check by being critical and challenging what we are expected to do by many of those politicians, which is to believe whatever we're told, even when it's blatently untrue.


I've written, albeit sparsely, about the despair I feel for the state of our country, and especially the fact that after 13 years of this evil Labour government so many of our children, youth, and young adults don't remember and haven't experienced a different way. In many senses, they have been effectively indoctrinated, brainwashed.

Let's get real. The only outcomes for the coming election are a Labour win (in which case show me the door out of the UK), a Conservative win, or a hung parliament. In the case of a hung parliament, it won't deliver a more consultative, consensual and sensible government, it will just create a period of stasis for a few months until a new election, in which case return to go, do not pass go, do not collect £200. Does anybody really believe otherwise?

So it's Labour or the Tories. And back to the "Big Idea"

I read all about it, and I felt encouraged, even a little excited. I can see what bloggers are suggesting when they lampoon the "Big Bank" (or was it "Peoples' Bank"?) and the suggestion for voluntary "National Service" and many of the other ideas that have been given unfortunate names, making them sound a bit like loony sandal-footed hippy schemes.

But cut him some slack, please, and open your mind and look at the intention behind the ideas. He's said he wants a small state, which I believe, so it's not really fair to accuse him of simply creating more Quangos. Sure, there may be some new structures set up to implement the new ideas, but if that's in the context of massive reductions in government elsewhere, I'm happy with that.

And the rest of it - surely it's about trying to make the country (and dare I say, society) better again - encouraging individual responsibility, respect, freedom and independance? Isn't that what everybody has ben banging on about in blogs all these months and years?

I want him to make this happen, and I want the country made a better place. He's got my support - not unquestioningly or uncritically, but I want him to win, and I want him to be the person I hope he is, and to do the things I hope he'll do. Personally, I want to encourage him in the right direction, and not spray my despair and anger indiscriminately at all politicians and parties, especially if that aids Labour even marginally in their desperate attempts to get back in.

Go ahead - flame me, call me stupid and naive. But I've said it and I meant it.