|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 17, 2024 11:14:02 GMT
I don't need to 'look for conspiracies', it is pretty obvious that the perverse outcomes we have seen need to involve a criminal conspiracy to even make sense. If you had an employee making similar judgment calls as our judiciary on this matter, you would have sacked him years ago as an industrial saboteur. If Labour have found the 'secret formula' that allows the British public to eject large numbers of unwanted invaders without our public 'service' figuratively stapling themselves to the runways, then this is indeed good news and we should expect the same formula to be used again and again to eject tens of thousands of these people a week for the next five years of Labour's term. However, I suspect the secret formula involves the movements of very large brown envelopes and there is only so much of this kind of activity that can be sensibly hidden. We will see. Maybe its research, maybe its trust . Research would mean government lawyers have picked those who should not be here and therefore get no legal objections, rather than pulling a Rwanda style stunt. Maybe the Tories wanted a Rwanda stunt to fail so they could point to Leftie EU lawyers and claim" its not their fault." Trust would mean the lawyers deporting the undesirables are known to the runway staplers and trusted. indeed. If they repeat the trick again and again and it doesn't become evident that the linchpins are being paid off, I will cease to care overly about the means. However, my prediction is that this is not going to happen. Consider it a challenge and target if you wish. Your GDP theory contains a flaw - total GDP is only of interest to the government (ie civil service) , it doesn't improve things for people. This is just another way of expressing my 'conspiracy theory' that the civil service have this fetish because the dysfunction and inefficiency it causes allows them to cement their power over the rest of the population. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 17, 2024 13:33:53 GMT
Maybe its research, maybe its trust . Research would mean government lawyers have picked those who should not be here and therefore get no legal objections, rather than pulling a Rwanda style stunt. Maybe the Tories wanted a Rwanda stunt to fail so they could point to Leftie EU lawyers and claim" its not their fault." Trust would mean the lawyers deporting the undesirables are known to the runway staplers and trusted. indeed. If they repeat the trick again and again and it doesn't become evident that the linchpins are being paid off, I will cease to care overly about the means. However, my prediction is that this is not going to happen. Consider it a challenge and target if you wish. Your GDP theory contains a flaw - total GDP is only of interest to the government (ie civil service) , it doesn't improve things for people. This is just another way of expressing my 'conspiracy theory' that the civil service have this fetish because the dysfunction and inefficiency it causes allows them to cement their power over the rest of the population. The result of falling or static GDP is very much of interest to the public. Falling GDP means more tax per working person. At the moment that is covered by constantly increasing the number of workers while services they need drag behind. It relies on bringing in fit young people who require little from the government for their first few years. The trouble is it relies on this happening every year. I am in favour of stopping immigration, but I'm not going to let people like you deceive the public and pretend its pain free. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 17, 2024 14:00:26 GMT
Maybe indeed. If they repeat the trick again and again and it doesn't become evident that the linchpins are being paid off, I will cease to care overly about the means. However, my prediction is that this is not going to happen. Consider it a challenge and target if you wish. Your GDP theory contains a flaw - total GDP is only of interest to the government (ie civil service) , it doesn't improve things for people. This is just another way of expressing my 'conspiracy theory' that the civil service have this fetish because the dysfunction and inefficiency it causes allows them to cement their power over the rest of the population. The result of falling or static GDP is very much of interest to the public. Falling GDP means more tax per working person. No. This is the sleight of hand. The hidden assumption is the number of people is increased for both options. However, only one of the options is a policy of increasing the number of peopleIf you had fewer people, GDP could be lower, productivity higher and taxes lower. A lower number of people has to be considered for one option, because increasing the number of people is the other option.
Like i said - the total GDP is only really important for the public sector empire builders. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Nov 17, 2024 14:07:12 GMT
Maybe indeed. If they repeat the trick again and again and it doesn't become evident that the linchpins are being paid off, I will cease to care overly about the means. However, my prediction is that this is not going to happen. Consider it a challenge and target if you wish. Your GDP theory contains a flaw - total GDP is only of interest to the government (ie civil service) , it doesn't improve things for people. This is just another way of expressing my 'conspiracy theory' that the civil service have this fetish because the dysfunction and inefficiency it causes allows them to cement their power over the rest of the population. The result of falling or static GDP is very much of interest to the public. Falling GDP means more tax per working person. At the moment that is covered by constantly increasing the number of workers while services they need drag behind. It relies on bringing in fit young people who require little from the government for their first few years. The trouble is it relies on this happening every year. I am in favour of stopping immigration, but I'm not going to let people like you deceive the public and pretend its pain free. Brilliant professor, just how does that resolve your net zero problem. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Nov 17, 2024 14:16:26 GMT
I am thinking it's a bit one-sided, I am asked for input, when I give it I seem to get ignored as though my point is a little unsavoury, I feel victimised because I am intelligent enough to see through this bluster and bullshit.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 17, 2024 15:27:20 GMT
So we have gone from disaster zone to piss poor and we should be grateful. You have not really understood what the anger is about yet. Oh come on Sandy, be fair. The right have been claiming Labour will open our doors to Africa for months. And Labour have done far better than the Tories in a very short time. Of course the real question is not ILLEGAL migrants, but legal ones. The doors were open the electorate were seeking someone to narrow that gap down to a trickle both legal and especially illegal. Doing far better than the Tories is not really a claim to fame, meeting manifesto commitments would be much better and that was smash the gangs and bring legal migration down. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 17, 2024 15:32:33 GMT
Maybe indeed. If they repeat the trick again and again and it doesn't become evident that the linchpins are being paid off, I will cease to care overly about the means. However, my prediction is that this is not going to happen. Consider it a challenge and target if you wish. Your GDP theory contains a flaw - total GDP is only of interest to the government (ie civil service) , it doesn't improve things for people. This is just another way of expressing my 'conspiracy theory' that the civil service have this fetish because the dysfunction and inefficiency it causes allows them to cement their power over the rest of the population. The result of falling or static GDP is very much of interest to the public. Falling GDP means more tax per working person. At the moment that is covered by constantly increasing the number of workers while services they need drag behind. It relies on bringing in fit young people who require little from the government for their first few years. The trouble is it relies on this happening every year. I am in favour of stopping immigration, but I'm not going to let people like you deceive the public and pretend its pain free. They are not bringing in fit young people, they are bring in health timebombs that will require many more 'fit young people' for many more years. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 17, 2024 16:07:16 GMT
The result of falling or static GDP is very much of interest to the public. Falling GDP means more tax per working person. No. This is the sleight of hand. The hidden assumption is the number of people is increased for both options. However, only one of the options is a policy of increasing the number of peopleIf you had fewer people, GDP could be lower, productivity higher and taxes lower. A lower number of people has to be considered for one option, because increasing the number of people is the other option.
Like i said - the total GDP is only really important for the public sector empire builders.You miss the aging population out of your calculations and that's the bit that matters. An ever growing percentage of the population that produce nothing and take most out. Are you thinking of making those pensioners return to work? If not you could try and increase production per working person in a number of ways, automation, AI, better working practices, even those lazy benefits claimants (Who are far fewer than the number you need) but so is every other country they are all competing with you in the same fight. You might increase the number of hours each able person must work, but that wont be any more popular than increasing tax. TBH, simply saying "If you had fewer people, GDP could be lower, productivity higher and taxes lower." is just John Luke Pichard saying 'make it so' HOW? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 17, 2024 16:08:36 GMT
The result of falling or static GDP is very much of interest to the public. Falling GDP means more tax per working person. At the moment that is covered by constantly increasing the number of workers while services they need drag behind. It relies on bringing in fit young people who require little from the government for their first few years. The trouble is it relies on this happening every year. I am in favour of stopping immigration, but I'm not going to let people like you deceive the public and pretend its pain free. Brilliant professor, just how does that resolve your net zero problem. It doesn't dumb student, that's a separate problem. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 17, 2024 16:11:20 GMT
The result of falling or static GDP is very much of interest to the public. Falling GDP means more tax per working person. At the moment that is covered by constantly increasing the number of workers while services they need drag behind. It relies on bringing in fit young people who require little from the government for their first few years. The trouble is it relies on this happening every year. I am in favour of stopping immigration, but I'm not going to let people like you deceive the public and pretend its pain free. They are not bringing in fit young people, they are bring in health timebombs that will require many more 'fit young people' for many more years. Health time bombs, dear oh dear, that soapbox stuff doesn't impress me. Speak in real terms what you mean and put some numbers in to back up your claims. And yes the scheme is a ponzi one requiring more every year, and worse it require more more every year, as you may have noticed. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 17, 2024 16:45:54 GMT
It doesnt take a genius to work out that mass immigration from third world countries brings a high risk of disease with it .
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 17, 2024 16:47:46 GMT
No. This is the sleight of hand. The hidden assumption is the number of people is increased for both options. However, only one of the options is a policy of increasing the number of peopleIf you had fewer people, GDP could be lower, productivity higher and taxes lower. A lower number of people has to be considered for one option, because increasing the number of people is the other option.
Like i said - the total GDP is only really important for the public sector empire builders.You miss the aging population out of your calculations and that's the bit that matters. An ever growing percentage of the population that produce nothing and take most out. Are you thinking of making those pensioners return to work? If not you could try and increase production per working person in a number of ways, automation, AI, better working practices, even those lazy benefits claimants (Who are far fewer than the number you need) but so is every other country they are all competing with you in the same fight. You might increase the number of hours each able person must work, but that wont be any more popular than increasing tax. TBH, simply saying "If you had fewer people, GDP could be lower, productivity higher and taxes lower." is just John Luke Pichard saying 'make it so'
HOW? Which is very similar to your argument regarding the rush to change from ICE to EV vehicles. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 17, 2024 16:54:47 GMT
It doesnt take a genius to work out that mass immigration from third world countries brings a high risk of disease with it . History says not. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 17, 2024 16:56:56 GMT
You miss the aging population out of your calculations and that's the bit that matters. An ever growing percentage of the population that produce nothing and take most out. Are you thinking of making those pensioners return to work? If not you could try and increase production per working person in a number of ways, automation, AI, better working practices, even those lazy benefits claimants (Who are far fewer than the number you need) but so is every other country they are all competing with you in the same fight. You might increase the number of hours each able person must work, but that wont be any more popular than increasing tax. TBH, simply saying "If you had fewer people, GDP could be lower, productivity higher and taxes lower." is just John Luke Pichard saying 'make it so'
HOW? Which is very similar to your argument regarding the rush to change from ICE to EV vehicles. Er no. The reason for EV's is very clear cut. It is to reduce Co2 emissions which they will do. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 17, 2024 16:58:05 GMT
It doesnt take a genius to work out that mass immigration from third world countries brings a high risk of disease with it . History says not. History supports my point . |
|
