If the EU is such a wonderful economic powerhouse why is it all the parts of the jigsaw puzzle are starting not to fit together?
It seems the structure is flawed.........
It's not the European Union that is having problems, it's the Euro currency and many diverse economies all having to act like each other.
Nothing at all flawed with the EU, plenty of flaws with the Euro.
The problem is debt, debt, and more debt. You can't keep spending money and expect good things to happen.
No, the problem is effectively peasant economies trying to keep up with heavily industrialised economies.
But surely that is the idea as to why peasant economies join the EU? To be subsidised by the industrialised economies. The current situation shows that the type of economic modle followed by the EU government is flawed.
On one hand, socialists say how advanced the economies are in much of Europe. We hear resident socialists tell us about how so many European economies are more efficient and produce more than America per capita. Now, we hear that they are peasant economies.
Few countries spend their way to long-term prosperity.
They were referring to Eastern European nations, they are not socialist.
I didn't say they were socialist. You resident socialists like to talk about how great European governments are. I'm guessing that you like many of these nations, because they are MORE socialist than America. Social programs have a cost.
There had never been anything more socialist than the EU even if it is not.
I don't think they really are more socialist at all, Eastern European countries are certainly not the ones "resident socialists" are referring to, I believe most of them are pretty right wing actually.
Of course YOU don't think they are partially socialist. Compared to what a capitalist or a conservative would want, they are far too close to socialism. Pretty much all of Europe is socialist by a American standards. Do you deny that most of Europe would be considered on the left side of the spectrum to Americans? You shouldn't.
No I mean most of the Eastern European nations are right wing, as in possibly more so than the US and not first, Poland for example is definitely more right wing than the US.
Ireland is doing pretty well actually, it has some economic troubles after the recession (but so does everyone very much including the US) high unemployment and bad growth at the moment but very low poverty (one third of what the US has proportionately) and falling inflation which in modern terms is a miracle that we only wish we could replicate.
Ireland has had good economic growth and is now one of the wealthiest countries in the world from being very poor not so long ago.
During a recession is a poor time to be looking at it but for example it outgrew the US by three times during the entire Bush presidency.
Their debt is proportionately about the same as ours.
Yeah, our debt is enormous and out of control. That confirms what I said about spending. Countries that incur massive debt usually have economic difficulties.
4 Years After Crisis, Ireland Strikes Deal to Ease a Huge Debt Load
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/02/07/ … rish-bank/
Spending is big everywhere it is what nations have to do to get out of a recession, ask any of the major economic bodies.
No, spending is not what countries have to do to get out of a recession. That's what leftists think you have to do to get out of a recession. The government isn't always the solution.
To get out of a recession, cut taxes, deregulate, encourage economic growth, keep interest rates low, etc.
The answer isn't to spend more. If it were, it would only result in short-term gains, at the cost of our future. That's not responsible.
As I said EVERY SINGLE MAJOR ECONOMIC INTERNATIONAL AGENCY.
IMF, OECD, WB and the WTO amongst many others.
obviously you know better
Well, I know spending your way out of an economic crisis isn't always the answer. You clearly think that the government is the solution to every crisis. The government creates many of the crisees.
You wrongly believe that people gravitate to socialism. People gravitate towards less government regulation.
Obviously, I do know better . . .than you.
If there is a crisis then spending is the way out of it. 95%+ of economists agree.
Yeah you tried to prove that lie before remember? turned out you were wrong and Europe (and indeed the world) have continued to gravitate towards socialism.
That is a specific number 95%+. . . The last time I quoted a Nobel winner in economics, you discounted his value. . .Now, you want to lump all the economists in one unifying force to defend the "Josak Philosophy of Evolutionary Economics."
I remember our discussions. That doesn't mean I agree with your liberal spin on reality. Even if it were true that people gravitate towards socialism, weren't you the same person that said polls don't mean anything? You use them to your advatage when you need to do so, and when the data doesn't seem to support your misguided, distorted reality, you simply discount it.
Most WESTERN European nations yes, and those ones are generally doing better, the further to the left the better they are doing pretty much.
In one of the forums, you recently touted that people move towards socialism and leftist ideologies after seeing what a failure other systems are. The Economist seems to disagree:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailycha … ropes-left
"TEN years ago almost half of the 27 countries that now make up the European Union, including Germany, Britain and Italy, were ruled by left-wing governments. Today, following the defeat of the ruling Socialists in Portugal's general election on June 5th, the left is in charge of just five: Spain, Greece, Austria, Slovenia and Cyprus. In Spain, by far the largest of these, polls suggest the Socialists will be removed from office at an election that must be held by next March. There are many theories for the left's weakness in Europe. One is simply that left-wing parties struggle when times are hard."
I guess it goes to show that some of these nations that are doing well, by your own words, seem to be moving away from your kind of nanny-state, socialist kind of government. Interesting.
Are you kidding me? France? Denmark? Finland? Sweden? The Netherlands? who made this list and how old is it?
Not to mention that constraining it to the EU is pretty dumb, it leaves out countries like Norway and Iceland.
But yes some leftist governments have lost in Europe because their conservative parties have largely become socialist themselves, look at the "conservative" parties in many of these nations and they are far further to the left than the Obama administration for example.
Not to mention a leftist party with a self declared socialist head leads in Britain by ten points in the polls which is a far larger prize than Spain.
Edit: your article is from 2011, pretty out of date.
The Netherlands is a great example, the traditional conservative opposition party came fifth in the elections this year and the majority government was formed by a centrist and socialist party, both the Left Greens and the socialist party beat the real conservatives.
OR let me put it this way the socialist and social democratic parties control over a third of the seat in the European parliament, more than ever before in the history of the EU, so do the European liberal parties and the European Green parties.
IN combination leftist parties hold 377 of the European parliament seats compared to 358 in non leftist hands, the majority of the non leftists from Eastern Europe.
The EU goverents operates a socialist system in a capitalist world that's why they are up to their necks in debt and doubt.
Greece and Cyprus bankrupt, Spain, Italy, Portugal, France and many more on the brink, brings to mind the old house of cards. Stronger Europe for being together? Don't think so.......
Doesn´t get into my mind what this has to do with socialist or capitalist systems. It is more the problem of productivity gaps between economies that share a common currency.
What is happening within the Eurozone is also happening on a global scale between the US and China, China playing the "productive" part. And you don´t want to accuse the US of playing the socialist game and China of play capitalist :-) haven´t you asked yourself why the US is complaining about "artificially low RMB exchange rates? And what is taking place between China and the US is also happening between Northern Europe and Southern Europe or if you will between Northern Italy and the Mezzogiorno or in Germany between Bavaria and former East Germany. The flaw is the common currency, and you either allow sovereign currencies to float freely or you have to install measures to adjust the economic performance of different economies. The currency of olives is not as strong as the currency of BMW´s, the combined curreny of the Boeings, Apples and Caterpillars is not as strong as the currency of plastic toy makers and plagiate makers with workforce living in dormitories.
All of us may have their moral standpoints and may disagree with the situation, but it as it is. The EU is like a laboratory where all economic problems of our world are bred in a petri dish, isolated in the common currency of the Euro.
As soon as the tax revenues started to decrease the EU started to get into trouble.
They did John but not the extent of say Greece which was held up by the crutch of funding from the EU tax take.
The sad thing is people still think the EU is not based on socialist ideals when it is plainly visible and because of this stronger nations in the union are taking the biggest hit.
But the EU is not based on socialist ideals - to say that it is displays a totally lack of understanding of socialism.
So you keep saying John but I wonder if even socialists understand socialism?
Obviously not as well as you do <sarcasm>
I thought socialism was all about sharing the wealth, maybe i was wrong and its all about control.
Still sounds like the EU to me whicheve way you look at it.
Obviously you are wrong. To state that it is socialism you are wrong. Which country adopted a real socialist economy? If they failed firstly it is because of their capitalistic economies. To adopt once again austerity as the medicine to their crisis comes from a free market economical view. Had it been socialist they would have applied the demand as a soothing throat drop for the economy to swallow.
Can I remind you too that most of those crisis are the repercussions of what we triggered, that most of those crisis are due to the banking system and their hazardous behavior with people's money.
How about socialism is not all about sharing the wealth and neither is it all about control.
The EU is pretty imperialist and as I'm sure you are well aware imperialism is a long way from socialism.
Socialism is about controlling the means of production and ownership so it is about control, socialist economics is about spreading the wealth evenly which is also a means of control.
The EU has a control system which it continues to add to allr he time, red tape, thousands of rules and regulations and bureaucracy burdoned the free trade and limits employment.
Taxation is used to prop up the failing system.
Government borrowing put the economy in trouble, the bank collapse just hi lighted the inadequacy of the fiat currency system.
Socialism is no more about controlling production than capitalism is - in fact it's less. Capitalism is about spreading the wealth unevenly which is also control. Capitalism loves red tape, rules and regulations and bureaucracy and really limits employment.
Government borrowing and banking are nothing to do with socialism.
You are falling into the American trap of saying that if you don't like something or something does not work then it must be socialism with no other foundation for your claims.
BTW, there is a difference between evenly and fairly.
"BTW, there is a difference between evenly and fairly"
Can we assume the necessary corollary that unevenly and unfairly are not the same either? That spreading the wealth unevenly may actually be fair?
Definition of socialism
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
(in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.
Definition of SOCIALISM
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
An economic and political system based on public or collective ownership of the means of production. Socialism emphasizes equality rather than achievement, and values workers by the amount of time they put in rather than by the amount of value they produce. It also makes individuals dependent on the state for everything from food to health care. China, Vietnam and Cuba are examples of modern-day socialist societies. Twentieth-century socialist governments were overthrown in Czechoslovakia, East Germany and the U.S.S.R.
Sounds like the state controls everything.
Which by the way is what the EU parliament is trying to do.
Wrong wrong and wrong.
Socialist economies rely on and use a quota system that entirely bases the wage on the production of a laborer so that is wrong.
Cuba, Vietnam and the USSR are and were COMMUNIST China is neither communist nor socialist or capitalist, socialism is a system that predates Marxism and communism by decades.
There are no pure socialist system in the world (just as there are no pure capitalist, fascist or communist systems in the world) but mixed socialist systems include most of Scandinavia and most of South America.
Most people talking about socialism are totally clueless on it.
A very selective reading if you conclude that socialism means that the state owns everything.
And, prey tell, what industries does the EU own?
Exactly. The end means of a socialist state is dictatorship, and usurpation of citizen powers.
But how can a socialist state usurp the powers of the very people who are that power?
Technically, we the people are the government in America. That doesn't mean that the government really respresents us or protects our freedom.
That's because the USA isn't a socialist state.
True. It is, however, leaning further in a socialist direction with the POTUS and his policies.
In which respect is it leaning in a more socialist direction?
Greater government intervention on behalf of the people is closer to socialism than capitalism.
Where is the point of reasoning with people who pretend to know like "educated answer"? None.
You are the guy who says that North Korea never made treats against America. You have no room to "+1" comments that claim somebody "pretends" to know something.
I actually said that it was understandable of NK to threaten to defend itself against aggressors.
You eluded to this after days of dodging a yes or no answer. We can go back and look. You were evasive at first and then slippery with your answer after that. You gave politician's answer, at the end.
If you are going to make a rude comment, at least do it well. Your quotations and statement are kind of pathetic. What's the point of making a statement when somebody is in denial?
Socialism means greater government intervention. That's what our POTUS believes in.
Every socialist in the HubPages political forum adamantly defends Obama; that should prove my point about America being closer to socialism under Obama. John Holden, a socialist, agrees with you though. Does that say something?
Socialism only means greater government intervention in your book, not according to every socialist that I know.
Though I am a socialist I do not defend Obama, who is not a socialist no matter how many times you claim that he is.
Do you support Obamacare over what America has right now? Yes. That is greater government intervention. Need more examples?
You don't defend Obama? You defend his policies. I did not say he is a socialist. I said our country is closer to socialism. He may be a socialist, but that's not what I said.
But there is nothing socialist about Obamacare! Still going to be the private insurance companies raking in the money.
Yes, but. . .
You support Obamacare. You are a socialist. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck. . .
I drink alcohol, I am a socialist, therefore by your reckoning alcohol is a socialist thing!
You and many other socialists support a lot of what Obama does. Thus, it is likely that our country is headed closer to socialism. Your support doesn't define you. It helps define Obama's policies.
The fact that I support any policy does not automatically make that policy a socialist policy.
For instance, the authorities in the city that I live in are making moves to impose a twenty mph speed limit on many roads in the city. I support that but then so do many right wingers. That does not make it a socialist policy any more than right wing support makes it a right wing policy.
balderdash? Are you sure about that alcohol thing? LOL
Yes, I agree that your support does not make it a socialist policy. It makes it a policy that a socialist would support. Feel better now? I doubt you'd support many policies I support, because I am a conservative. You do support some of President Obama's policies. The point should be pretty clear. We are heading towards a more socialist nation.
Name one socialist on this forum who hasn't adamantly defended Obama. That's what I thought.
Correction, it makes it a policy that some socialists would support.
Yes, I do support some of Obama's policies but some I strongly oppose, and not just the ones you'd assume I oppose. He is after all, pretty right wing.
He's right wing by European standards. By American standards, he's ultra liberal.
So if he's right wing by European standards, why on earth do you think he would appeal to left wing Europeans?
He appeals in relation to other politicians. I'm quite confident that you like Obama's policies more than you did Bush's or Reagan's.
Face it, you like Obama, because he's as close to a socialist as America has ever elected. That was my point. We are not socialist, but we are going in that direction now.
You didn't answer my question, so I'll post it again:
Name one socialist on this forum who hasn't adamantly defended Obama. That's what I thought.
I'm sorry but your logic has massive holes in it, in fact it hardly exists at all!
In answer to your question I'll ask another, name one socialist who hasn't been critical of Obama?
I have yet to see much criticism. Perhaps it has been veiled by a greater effort to defend him.
The point is simple. Obama is closer to socialism than Reagan. Liberals are closer to socialism than conservatives are. That's NOT saying that liberals are socialists.
No, I have not said that. I said we are closer to socialism now, under Obama, than we were before him. Go back and look.
But Obama isn't even close to being a socialist. He isn't even close to your definition of a liberal. He might be fairly liberal by European standards but then European liberals are fairly right wing, much closer to the conservatives than the left.
He is clearly LIBERAL by American standards. What are you thinking? Prior to being elected, multiple sources listed him as having an exceedingly liberal voting record in the Senate. He certainly hasn't become more conservative since then.
"Barack Obama of Illinois had the most liberal voting record in 2006."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix … -whos.html
Yeah, the UN can't wait to make him their president.
The same way all the Communists did. Entice a growing population of lazy, non producers into voting for expansion of government powers through class warfare rhetoric. Disarm the public by convincing uninformed voters that guns are dangerous and the police should rely solely on local law enforcement for protection. Get the people to trade liberty for security. Voila! Police state.
I take it you are referring to the USSR which was not a socialist state, not even a communist state but a state capitalist state.
I agree with you. It is delusional.
I can see an argument that the USSR was not socialistic or even communistic. To say it was capitalistic, however, is fiction at best.
UK State or local government owned
Central government East Coast Trains
Royal Mail to be privatized before 2014
NATS Holdings (49%) privatization to be completed soon.
National Nuclear Laboratory
London and Continental Railways
Channel Four Television Corporation
Rescued banks UK Financial Investments Limited Northern Rock (Asset Management)
Lloyds Banking Group (partial)
UK Asset Resolution Ltd The Royal Bank of Scotland Group (partial)
Devolved government Scottish Water (Scottish Government)
Caledonian MacBrayne (Scottish Government)
Local government Manchester Airport (Greater Manchester local authorities)
Manchester Metrolink (Transport for Greater Manchester)
Tyne and Wear Metro (Tyne and Wear Integrated Transport Authority)
London Underground (Transport for London)
As we are a EU country i suppose they could be seen as EU ownership.
So do you get dividens from your ownership of TFGM then John?
You have no say in its control; or financing, you have paid for it, you may even use it (at a cost) but you don't own it.
You could vote against them John but you couldn't vote them out (not as an individual).
The EU would just make more laws to control it.
TFGM is a quango so its almost imposible for the public to control it.
Does it actually make any money?
There is very little that I can do as an individual, for instance, I can't vote the directors of ASDA out.
The EU actually don't care about TfGM though I do understand you will find that hard to believe.
Metrolink is profitable in that it receives no public subsidy but generally TfGM is not about making money but about distributing it, ie giving public support to private enterprise.
Metro link maybe but TFGM recieves public money.
Of course it receives public money!
It gets billions off the government to subsidise public transport, you know, that public transport that was privatised to remove the need for public subsidy.
And, it wasn't the "socialist" EU that privatised public transport.
No it was the right leaning government that privatised but it was the left leaning government that increased the subsidies.
You are joking! In the first year that British Rail was privatised the government paid them a subsidy that was equivalent to the shareholders dividend!
And even if the left did increase subsidies, it wasn't the EU who increased them.
Any government that is within the EU is the government of the EU. Rules regulations and laws made by the EU parliament are influenced then controlled and enforced by the governments that make up the EU. Everything from how straight your cucumbers have to be to how much subsidies (if any) you can give to private companies.
No, the government of the UK is the government of the UK, not the EU.
So John what you are saying is the UK government doesn't have to uphold any of the European laws rules and regulations, it doesn't have to collect taxes to pay into the EU and it doesn't have to have representatives in the European Parliament either.
Well look at how other EU countries uphold EU regulations.
But that has got nothing to do with your point. The point is we joined the EU voluntarily and we stay in it voluntarily.
Just as we don't have to pay into the EU by the same token the EU does not have to pay into the UK.
No John we joined the EEC voluntarily not the EU, the politicians joined us up to the EU without a vote and have continued to give powers to the EU without the consent of the people. Even when countries within the EU give their electorate the vote the EU dictators won't accept the results.
We also pay an awful lot of tax money into the EU, most of it going to farmers under the CAP and huge amounts into running the bureaucracy of the beast.
They also pay us a lot of money back which is used for projects that our own government would never support.
Is that because the majority of the people wouldn't support them either then John?
The EU is just another tier of bureaucracy without a doubt.
The majority of people in the UK wouldn't support the financial burdon of the projects the EU have financed.
How about this one John
Should the UK government have control over who it gives welfare to?
How do you know that? EU supported schemes in my home city are well supported by the people.
As for the UK having control over who it pays welfare to, well I suppose I would be quite happy for them to refuse to support EU immigrants if emigrants from the UK refused welfare payments from their host countries - but they don't and they won't!
The fact that the people of your city has had to go to Europe for the funding in the first place shows they didn't want to fund it themselves.
You will find most of the people who emigrate from the UK do so to work not claim benefits.
How many things that happen in London are funded by Londoners?
You will find that most of the people who immigrate into the UK do so to work and not claim benefits.
ETA. I know of one Eastern European who is busy claiming her pension off her home country, even though she is entitled to a UK pension, because the pension paid by her home country is much more generous than the UK pension.
Well John I believe a portion of our council tax goes to fund London living.
There has been a great cost to immigration even of you or the politicians don't think so
Council tax! And the rest, and yet you pour scorn on my fellows because they accept money from the EU and don't fund everything out of their own pockets!
Rather than there being a great cost to immigration there is actually a small gain. You most tell us what you know that the politicians don't.
Politicians know John they just don't want you to know.
You seem to be under the impression that all immigrants to the UK come here to take advantage of our rather poor benefits and not to work and contribute to our pensions and other welfare benefits, build houses, run our health care systems and transport systems!
Well they must be doing a really poor job of it then John as everything is in decline.
I wonder where they are finding the 20000 jobs a month that are required for such immigrants?
It isn't the fault of the migrants or indeed the indigenous population that everything is in decline, unless of course you are thinking of migrant bankers.
Where does your figure of 20000 jobs a month come from?
There are 20000 immigrants a month entering the UK that includes immigrants from non EU countries and migrants from EU countries it also includes asylum seekers who are unable to work until processed.
Now by the politicians and the politically blinds standard line all these people come here to work so therefor there must be 20000 jobs a month available to them. No matter what the political rhetoric is the figures don't match up.
Net migration quintupled from 50,000 in 1997 to 250,000 in 2010. Over 3 million immigrants have arrived since 1997. Net migration fell to 163,000 in the year to June 2012 as government policies took effect.
A migrant arrives almost every minute but they leave at only just over half that rate.
More people have now migrated to the UK in a single year (2010) than did so in the entire period from 1066 to 1950, excluding wartime.
We must build a new home every seven minutes for new migrants.
England is already, with the Netherlands, the most crowded country in Europe, excluding island and city states.
The population of the UK will grow by over 7 million to 70 million in the next 15 years, 5 million due to immigration - that is the equivalent of the current populations of Birmingham, Leeds, Glasgow, Sheffield, Bradford, Manchester, Liverpool, Bristol and Oxford.
To keep the populationÂ of the UK, now 62.3 million, below 70 million, net immigration must be reduced to around 40,000 a year. It would then peak in mid-century at about 68 million.
Migration watch who take their figures from the ONS and other government organisations.
Well it would appear that Migration Watch is playing with numbers again to suit their purpose.
Simply put, to cause unrest about immigration.
I Can't and don't blame the immigrants John, why would I if I was in their situation and the land and milk and honey was calling me I would be a fool not to go.
I have to lay the blame squarely at the governments door. To import millions of people without thinking about the infrastructure to cope with them is political madness at its best.
I hope you are not under the illusion that this is the land of milk and honey for those who live off benefits! With about the lowest rates of benefits in the EU, the milk would be rather sour and the honey crystalline and tainted.
Do you remember Enoch Powell and the huge numbers he encouraged to migrate to the UK because we were short of people to run the health service, the public transport and other essential services? The way I say it we are still dependent on immigrants to run those services.
It's the land of milk and honey for the vast number of Africans who have come here John.
After the war the country had lost a generation and to rebuild we needed more people, those of the former commonwealth were invited to come and work and escape the abject poverty they lived in. We must thank those that came, who helped us rebuild, who paid taxes and who added to the multiculturalism of this country.
But I still can't see the point of the recent unfettered madness of mass immigration that the government has seen fit to bring upon us.
You don't know much do you!
You wouldn't read the Daily Mail would you?
I know that labour appologised for the mess they made of immigration John.
I also know there are 2.7 million people on the dole John and they are still letting people in to find work, just how mad is that?
I do sometimes read the Mail but I also read the Times, the Guardian, the Telegraph and watch both the BBC and Reference Reuters.
I may lean to the right a bit but I see things as they are not through the rose tinted glasses of the left.
If none or very few of those 2.7 million are qualified to take the vacancies that there are, what do you propose, leaving the vacancies unfilled? Last time I was in hospital I would say that 75% of the nursing staff were immigrants or of immigrant stock. As it was the hospital was short of nurses, imagine what it would be like with 75% fewer!
1 in 7 John, that's the figure for the NHS and other care services.
But does this justify the figures of thousands a month? And how many of those thousands a month are skilled workers?
Even the architects of mass immigration have apologised the the British people for their mistake, a mistake that is causing huge concern in the country.
Those who bury their head in the sand eventually get their backside kicked.
1 in seven what?
I don't trust any government to let truth rule over expediency.
1 immigrant for every 7 staff in the NHS and care services.
I don't trust the government to tell the truth about anything.
That sounds about right if you consider that immigrants are more likely to have contact with the patients.
You mean you don't trust the government to tell the truth about anything, unless it confirms your prejudices?
Else why do you keep saying "the government says. . ."?
well like you John i must be cherry picking, you cherry pick the good parts to suit your argument and i cherry pick the bad parts to suit mine.
However you only have to open your eyes to see whats really happening.
Huge waiting times in the NHS
Shortage of properties
Massive growth in welfare benefits
But nothing to do with immigration - without it they would be even longer!
Again, recession isn't the fault of immigrants, most of whom com here to work.
Growing unemployment is caused by a lack of jobs caused by a system that treats people as disposable assets.
Again, caused by private builders being reluctant to build in a recession and governments reluctance to provide social housing. Even if immigration was completely stopped tomorrow, there still would not be enough houses to go round because there aren't being enough built.
What do you expect when people are being thrown on the scrap heap? Again, nothing to do with immigration - many immigrants taking jobs that we won't take. Fancy picking cockles in Morecambe Bay for a pound an hour?
So all of the things have nothing to do with the influx of 5 million immigrants in the last 13 years then John. So where do the 20000 immigrants who come to the country each month find jobs then? If these immigrants do take low paid jobs they are entitled to welfare benefits (tax credits etc etc). And is it right someone should be paid lower than the minimum wage because they are immigrants? Maybe if there wasn't a flowing tap of cheap disposable labour then wages and conditions would change.
No, they had nothing to do with immigration.
Huge (!) waiting times on the NHS are a figment of imagination and much more likely to be caused by this governments hatred of the NHS.
Growing unemployment is down to a system that regards workers as disposable, but immigrants are a handy way of avoiding the truth.
The shortage of properties can be traced back to the end of WWII when countless thousand s of houses had been destroyed by enemy action but only half hearted efforts were made to replace them. That followed by the massive slum clearances of the 60s and 70s.
The massive (!) growth in welfare benefits is down to this governments austerity drive.
Best bury your head back in the sand John, you said we never built enough homes after the war but we still let millions into the country to take homes we hadn't got then.
The NHS problems are to do with the years of funding adjustment by previous governments but it still doesn't answer the question as to why are we still letting people in to use the service if its already overloaded.
The flood of cheap labour from overseas has done nothing to aid stable and rewarding employment.
The truth is John that mass immigration on the scale which the Labour party has already apologised for has unequivocally harmed the UK.
Immigration makes a handy scapegoat to avoid addressing the real problems that face this country, these are nothing to do with the billions of pounds that immigrants earn for this country, and everything to do with governments who are too busy kow towing to big business, bailing out banks and huge corporations, many of who are the migrants that need to be blamed, not the handful of immigrants who come here for small economic reasons.
Get it out of your head that most migrants come here to exploit our rather pathetic benefits - they don't.
Again John you overlook the very facts that stare you in the face.
It's not about blaming immigrants either, lets face it you cant blame them for coming here considering the places they come from, but it is undeniable that the mass immigration pursued by the previous government has put an incredible strain on the country.
Get it out of your head that big business and banking are a detriment to the country, in fact they employ millions of people and in the main make up the majority of the tax paid even if you believe otherwise. Its the governments fault that they have created a tax system where big corporations (usually American) can avoid paying taxes, the last government made it easier in fact and this one still hasn't done anything about the situation except try and blame and shame the companies involved.
Get it out of your head that the benefits are pathetic, 6 million people in this country receive benefits of some form or another.
Those six million are not all immigrants!
But I'm glad you realise that it is government, not immigrants, that are responsible for our tax system.
Of course they are not all immigrants John but why persist on making the problem worse with continuing a policy of unrestricted immigration?
Lets face it a country would be stupid not to let people in who have the skills that are required, but the government of the day thought it would be a good idea to allow millions of unskilled and unemployable people in for no other reason than political ideology.