Can the Great Leader suggest some ways of bridging the divide, rather than just spouting the annual effluent of meaningless platitudes?
I actually meant the twitter commenter...
I know. I meant the Queen.
She's not allowed to suggest actual ways of bridging divides. Wanting divides bridged is something everyone can agree on. Suggesting which divides need to be bridged, how, and in what order, well, those are political choices.
So I wonder again what the point of her is.
Many a republican would agree, and that's fine, but I don't think anyone needs to get into the point of ceremonial, constitutional monarchy. You obviously know the point of such monarchies, as indeed do some republics, which have entirely or mostly ceremonial presidents. You're not so naiive as to be unaware of what people consider the point of her is, even if you do not agree with it.
Personally I think if something is going to be replaced there needs to be a clear benefit to doing so, and different platitudes about meritocracy or replacement with ceremonial presidency don't really seem worth it. If there is to be a change to our system, it would need to be top to bottom.
So the person on here (SeanT?) who jokingly suggested THE GATWICK DRONE might have been a collective delusion caused by an extreme build up of Brexit psychosis may have been accidentally correct.
But why would Gatwick be delusion centre ?
The prospect that there was nothing there at all is somehow even more depressing than so much chaos was caused by a couple of drones. If there was nothing please god let it be some deliberately started psychological experiment or something so some use may come from it.
Apparently there was never a Brexit either. It was a chimera.
Well that's a relief, otherwise it all seems quite fraught.
It does lend weight to the suggestion that the solution to the Irish border issue is just to pretend we've solved it and carry on as usual.
I think we entered an alternative timeline when Cammo called the European referendum which led to Biff Tannen becoming US president and most of Sussex entering collective drone psychosis.
So the person on here (SeanT?) who jokingly suggested THE GATWICK DRONE might have been a collective delusion caused by an extreme build up of Brexit psychosis may have been accidentally correct.
But why would Gatwick be delusion centre ?
The prospect that there was nothing there at all is somehow even more depressing than so much chaos was caused by a couple of drones. If there was nothing please god let it be some deliberately started psychological experiment or something so some use may come from it.
Apparently there was never a Brexit either. It was a chimera.
The entire last three years have been a bad dream.
Can the Great Leader suggest some ways of bridging the divide, rather than just spouting the annual effluent of meaningless platitudes?
I actually meant the twitter commenter...
I know. I meant the Queen.
She's not allowed to suggest actual ways of bridging divides. Wanting divides bridged is something everyone can agree on. Suggesting which divides need to be bridged, how, and in what order, well, those are political choices.
So I wonder again what the point of her is.
“It is at this time of year one thinks of motherhood and apple pie.”
The point of Royalty is to keep our politicians from being Head of State. The more I see of people who are both Heads of Government and also Heads of State like Trump, Putin or Macron, the wiser this seems.
Contender for the worst thread header since I started reading this blog (which was only a few months after it started)
So in nearly 15 years you managed just 25 posts... and that was one of them?
Thank you for your contribution
In fairness, this is the third comments system in that time. And every time the comment count has reset to zero.
Fair enough.
That's set me wondering how many really old posters are left on here. It's not actually that many. I date back to 2007. Morris Dancer, JackW, TSE, antifrank (as he called himself then) David Herdson and I think Richard Nabavi were all around. But I can't think of many others. Some have died. Some went crazy and got the ban hammer. Some have just drifted away.
I was around a bit back in 2008, when Obama won for the first time. Made enough to buy a new camera and lenses, but drifted away. The puns are better these days; our politics not so much.
Found this place on election night 2005, but didn’t post until a few years ago. Was a great way to spend down time during Uni, which was thankfully Pre Netflix etc
I think I first stumbled across this place around the 2005 election too.
So more old timers than I realised. Well, that's good.
Anyway, I am going to bed and as I will probably be very busy for the next week I may not be able to comment. I therefore wish all at PB a very merry Christmas and a prosperous new year - especial mention however to OGH, @rcs1000 and @TSE who keep the site running and give as all a forum to meet and make awesome puns in.
Can the Great Leader suggest some ways of bridging the divide, rather than just spouting the annual effluent of meaningless platitudes?
I actually meant the twitter commenter...
I know. I meant the Queen.
She's not allowed to suggest actual ways of bridging divides. Wanting divides bridged is something everyone can agree on. Suggesting which divides need to be bridged, how, and in what order, well, those are political choices.
So I wonder again what the point of her is.
“It is at this time of year one thinks of motherhood and apple pie.”
The point of Royalty is to keep our politicians from being Head of State. The more I see of people who are both Heads of Government and also Heads of State like Trump, Putin or Macron, the wiser this seems.
Must be strange being in a ceremonial monarchy where there is also very disruptive politics, with coups and the like. Makes me want to know more about all those Japanese Emperors for century upon century.
Contender for the worst thread header since I started reading this blog (which was only a few months after it started)
So in nearly 15 years you managed just 25 posts... and that was one of them?
Thank you for your contribution
In fairness, this is the third comments system in that time. And every time the comment count has reset to zero.
Fair enough.
That's set me wondering how many really old posters are left on here. It's not actually that many. I date back to 2007. Morris Dancer, JackW, TSE, antifrank (as he called himself then) David Herdson and I think Richard Nabavi were all around. But I can't think of many others. Some have died. Some went crazy and got the ban hammer. Some have just drifted away.
I think I started posting about a year after PB started.
I must have joined the fray round about the end of 2008.
Can the Great Leader suggest some ways of bridging the divide, rather than just spouting the annual effluent of meaningless platitudes?
I actually meant the twitter commenter...
I know. I meant the Queen.
She's not allowed to suggest actual ways of bridging divides. Wanting divides bridged is something everyone can agree on. Suggesting which divides need to be bridged, how, and in what order, well, those are political choices.
So I wonder again what the point of her is.
She saves us from having another bloody politician as head of state.
Can the Great Leader suggest some ways of bridging the divide, rather than just spouting the annual effluent of meaningless platitudes?
I actually meant the twitter commenter...
I know. I meant the Queen.
She's not allowed to suggest actual ways of bridging divides. Wanting divides bridged is something everyone can agree on. Suggesting which divides need to be bridged, how, and in what order, well, those are political choices.
So I wonder again what the point of her is.
“It is at this time of year one thinks of motherhood and apple pie.”
The point of Royalty is to keep our politicians from being Head of State. The more I see of people who are both Heads of Government and also Heads of State like Trump, Putin or Macron, the wiser this seems.
The point of royalty is to keep dozens of palaces in the hands of one family. Imagine how many homeless folk could be housed in Buckingham Palace during the Christmas period.
So the person on here (SeanT?) who jokingly suggested THE GATWICK DRONE might have been a collective delusion caused by an extreme build up of Brexit psychosis may have been accidentally correct.
But why would Gatwick be delusion centre ?
The prospect that there was nothing there at all is somehow even more depressing than so much chaos was caused by a couple of drones. If there was nothing please god let it be some deliberately started psychological experiment or something so some use may come from it.
Apparently there was never a Brexit either. It was a chimera.
The entire last three years have been a bad dream.
Brexit. Trumpton. The drone.
None are real.
You've forgotten JC, who is neither g-d nor the messiah.
Can the Great Leader suggest some ways of bridging the divide, rather than just spouting the annual effluent of meaningless platitudes?
I actually meant the twitter commenter...
I know. I meant the Queen.
She's not allowed to suggest actual ways of bridging divides. Wanting divides bridged is something everyone can agree on. Suggesting which divides need to be bridged, how, and in what order, well, those are political choices.
So I wonder again what the point of her is.
“It is at this time of year one thinks of motherhood and apple pie.”
The point of Royalty is to keep our politicians from being Head of State. The more I see of people who are both Heads of Government and also Heads of State like Trump, Putin or Macron, the wiser this seems.
The point of royalty is to keep dozens of palaces in the hands of one family. Imagine how many homeless folk could be housed in Buckingham Palace during the Christmas period.
Yes, republics never have homelessness problems. Come on, you weren't even trying with that one!
Can the Great Leader suggest some ways of bridging the divide, rather than just spouting the annual effluent of meaningless platitudes?
I actually meant the twitter commenter...
I know. I meant the Queen.
She's not allowed to suggest actual ways of bridging divides. Wanting divides bridged is something everyone can agree on. Suggesting which divides need to be bridged, how, and in what order, well, those are political choices.
So I wonder again what the point of her is.
She saves us from having another bloody politician as head of state.
What a wonderful advert for our democracy and constitution.
“Our politicians are so utterly shite we’d rather maintain an gigantic premium welfare state so a 92-year-old can spout banalities every Christmas.”
Can the Great Leader suggest some ways of bridging the divide, rather than just spouting the annual effluent of meaningless platitudes?
I actually meant the twitter commenter...
I know. I meant the Queen.
She's not allowed to suggest actual ways of bridging divides. Wanting divides bridged is something everyone can agree on. Suggesting which divides need to be bridged, how, and in what order, well, those are political choices.
So I wonder again what the point of her is.
She saves us from having another bloody politician as head of state.
What a wonderful advert for our democracy and constitution.
“Our politicians are so utterly shite we’d rather maintain an gigantic premium welfare state so a 92-year-old can spout banalities every Christmas.”
Our democracy and constitution are not perfect, but are one of the best and most enduring on the planet. That does not mean that people could not think they would be improved with a change from monarchy, but it does put in perspective 'woe is us' comments about our politics, democracy and constitution. Our system perhaps could be significantly improved. But it is not actually bad. No, not even with our politicians. After all, they are engaging in vigorous, intense debate and yet none are seeking to overthrow the very system itself without working from within it.
So perhaps it is a wonderful advert for our democracy and constitution, you are right.
It really is not that bad. And can be changed very easily, if there is public will to do so.
Can the Great Leader suggest some ways of bridging the divide, rather than just spouting the annual effluent of meaningless platitudes?
I actually meant the twitter commenter...
I know. I meant the Queen.
She's not allowed to suggest actual ways of bridging divides. Wanting divides bridged is something everyone can agree on. Suggesting which divides need to be bridged, how, and in what order, well, those are political choices.
So I wonder again what the point of her is.
She saves us from having another bloody politician as head of state.
Funnily enough I don’t feel saved from bloody politicians, they continue to blunder on in embarrassing fashion every day.
Can the Great Leader suggest some ways of bridging the divide, rather than just spouting the annual effluent of meaningless platitudes?
I actually meant the twitter commenter...
I know. I meant the Queen.
She's not allowed to suggest actual ways of bridging divides. Wanting divides bridged is something everyone can agree on. Suggesting which divides need to be bridged, how, and in what order, well, those are political choices.
So I wonder again what the point of her is.
“It is at this time of year one thinks of motherhood and apple pie.”
The point of Royalty is to keep our politicians from being Head of State. The more I see of people who are both Heads of Government and also Heads of State like Trump, Putin or Macron, the wiser this seems.
The point of royalty is to keep dozens of palaces in the hands of one family. Imagine how many homeless folk could be housed in Buckingham Palace during the Christmas period.
Yes, republics never have homelessness problems. Come on, you weren't even trying with that one!
Do the royal parasites "need" all those palaces? Really?
Does this seem a little unusual at this time of year? Maybe its routine, maybe its federal government shutdown related. Some analysts fancy 2019 is going to rather tough in the US market and economy.
Does this seem a little unusual at this time of year? Maybe its routine, maybe its federal government shutdown related. Some analysts fancy 2019 is going to rather tough in the US market and economy.
Based on the final paragraph I assume it is shutdown-related. Probably to reassure and give confidence that there's no reason for a bank run caused by shutdown-related fears.
Can the Great Leader suggest some ways of bridging the divide, rather than just spouting the annual effluent of meaningless platitudes?
I actually meant the twitter commenter...
I know. I meant the Queen.
She's not allowed to suggest actual ways of bridging divides. Wanting divides bridged is something everyone can agree on. Suggesting which divides need to be bridged, how, and in what order, well, those are political choices.
So I wonder again what the point of her is.
“It is at this time of year one thinks of motherhood and apple pie.”
The point of Royalty is to keep our politicians from being Head of State. The more I see of people who are both Heads of Government and also Heads of State like Trump, Putin or Macron, the wiser this seems.
The point of royalty is to keep dozens of palaces in the hands of one family.
We have our own unskilled and unemployed eligible to benefits without importing more and entitling them to our benefits too. I have no qualms with skilled, working migrants who support themselves but I see no reason to import people to claim welfare.
Why do you assume that unskilled immigrants aren't going to work and support themselves?
Are you arguing that there is no need in the UK for unskilled labour, or what?
If the unskilled immigrants can work and support themselves with zero rights to in-work benefits then I have no qualms with that as I said.
No I am saying there is a supply of unskilled labour already and we should apply the economics of supply and demand to that. I see no need to artificially inflate our supply of unskilled labour.
If a company wants to hire unskilled labour then they can compete based on supply and demand with other companies to attract that labour from the unskilled we already have and not import new unskilled labour.
There is no divine right to have vacancies filled. If you can't fill a vacancy with the unskilled labour that is already present you can either compete better (increasing wages), work smarter (be more productive so you don't need as much labour) or some other combination. That is how the economy grows per capita. That is how our productivity improves. That is supply and demand. The best employers should be able to recruit ultimately.
As an example replacing automated mechanical car washes which use no labour with hand car washes which are staffed by unskilled labourers potentially claiming tax credits being paid minimum wage is not progress.
Can the Great Leader suggest some ways of bridging the divide, rather than just spouting the annual effluent of meaningless platitudes?
I actually meant the twitter commenter...
I know. I meant the Queen.
She's not allowed to suggest actual ways of bridging divides. Wanting divides bridged is something everyone can agree on. Suggesting which divides need to be bridged, how, and in what order, well, those are political choices.
So I wonder again what the point of her is.
“It is at this time of year one thinks of motherhood and apple pie.”
The point of Royalty is to keep our politicians from being Head of State. The more I see of people who are both Heads of Government and also Heads of State like Trump, Putin or Macron, the wiser this seems.
The point of royalty is to keep dozens of palaces in the hands of one family.
"Dozens"?
More like "four":
Buckingham Kensington St James Holyroodhouse
What about Balmoral? St James's Palace? Hillsborough Castle?
That's before counting things like Clarence House etc
Can the Great Leader suggest some ways of bridging the divide, rather than just spouting the annual effluent of meaningless platitudes?
I actually meant the twitter commenter...
I know. I meant the Queen.
She's not allowed to suggest actual ways of bridging divides. Wanting divides bridged is something everyone can agree on. Suggesting which divides need to be bridged, how, and in what order, well, those are political choices.
So I wonder again what the point of her is.
“It is at this time of year one thinks of motherhood and apple pie.”
The point of Royalty is to keep our politicians from being Head of State. The more I see of people who are both Heads of Government and also Heads of State like Trump, Putin or Macron, the wiser this seems.
The point of royalty is to keep dozens of palaces in the hands of one family.
"Dozens"?
More like "four":
Buckingham Kensington St James Holyroodhouse
Anmer Hall Birkhall House Craigowan Lodge Delnadamph Lodge Bagshot Park Balmoral Castle Buckingham Palace Clarence House Gatcombe Park Highgrove House Hillsborough Castle Kensington Palace Llwynywermod Nottingham Cottage Palace of Holyroodhouse Sandringham House St James's Palace Tamarisk Thatched House Lodge The Royal Lodge Windsor Castle Wren House
Worth remembering too in this discussion on the royals that the notion that palaces like Balmoral are the private property of the Queen is a fiction.
Private property is subject to inheritance tax and if the Queen had to pay inheritance tax on Balmoral etc she may have had to sell them. But there is no inheritance tax on it because it is passed sovereign to sovereign.
So it's not really private property in any normal sense of the words.
Worth remembering too in this discussion on the royals that the notion that palaces like Balmoral are the private property of the Queen is a fiction.
Private property is subject to inheritance tax and if the Queen had to pay inheritance tax on Balmoral etc she may have had to sell them. But there is no inheritance tax on it because it is passed sovereign to sovereign.
So it's not really private property in any normal sense of the words.
Worth remembering too in this discussion on the royals that the notion that palaces like Balmoral are the private property of the Queen is a fiction.
Private property is subject to inheritance tax and if the Queen had to pay inheritance tax on Balmoral etc she may have had to sell them. But there is no inheritance tax on it because it is passed sovereign to sovereign.
So it's not really private property in any normal sense of the words.
The Queen can not pass on national assets to whoever she wants. The sovereigns assets are the country's assets and the sovereign is the guardian.
We have our own unskilled and unemployed eligible to benefits without importing more and entitling them to our benefits too. I have no qualms with skilled, working migrants who support themselves but I see no reason to import people to claim welfare.
Why do you assume that unskilled immigrants aren't going to work and support themselves?
Are you arguing that there is no need in the UK for unskilled labour, or what?
If the unskilled immigrants can work and support themselves with zero rights to in-work benefits then I have no qualms with that as I said.
No I am saying there is a supply of unskilled labour already and we should apply the economics of supply and demand to that. I see no need to artificially inflate our supply of unskilled labour.
If a company wants to hire unskilled labour then they can compete based on supply and demand with other companies to attract that labour from the unskilled we already have and not import new unskilled labour.
There is no divine right to have vacancies filled. If you can't fill a vacancy with the unskilled labour that is already present you can either compete better (increasing wages), work smarter (be more productive so you don't need as much labour) or some other combination. That is how the economy grows per capita. That is how our productivity improves. That is supply and demand. The best employers should be able to recruit ultimately.
As an example replacing automated mechanical car washes which use no labour with hand car washes which are staffed by unskilled labourers potentially claiming tax credits being paid minimum wage is not progress.
Hand washing cars (for payment) is a backward step as far as UK productivity is concerned.
95% of homeless people have sheltered accommodation - but not somewhere permanent they can call home.
It is only those sleeping on the streets who have no shelter. Many of them, but an unknown percentage, actually choose not to have a roof over their heads and decline hostels.
It is a complicated situation that making more housing avaialable will not fully solve.
Worth remembering too in this discussion on the royals that the notion that palaces like Balmoral are the private property of the Queen is a fiction.
Private property is subject to inheritance tax and if the Queen had to pay inheritance tax on Balmoral etc she may have had to sell them. But there is no inheritance tax on it because it is passed sovereign to sovereign.
So it's not really private property in any normal sense of the words.
The Queen can not pass on national assets to whoever she wants. The sovereigns assets are the country's assets and the sovereign is the guardian.
Balmoral is considered private and not part of the crown estates. Its revenues are kept by the Queen and not given to the country in the Crown Estates. But it's still untaxed.
We have our own unskilled and unemployed eligible to benefits without importing more and entitling them to our benefits too. I have no qualms with skilled, working migrants who support themselves but I see no reason to import people to claim welfare.
Why do you assume that unskilled immigrants aren't going to work and support themselves?
Are you arguing that there is no need in the UK for unskilled labour, or what?
If the unskilled immigrants can work and support themselves with zero rights to in-work benefits then I have no qualms with that as I said.
No I am saying there is a supply of unskilled labour already and we should apply the economics of supply and demand to that. I see no need to artificially inflate our supply of unskilled labour.
If a company wants to hire unskilled labour then they can compete based on supply and demand with other companies to attract that labour from the unskilled we already have and not import new unskilled labour.
There is no divine right to have vacancies filled. If you can't fill a vacancy with the unskilled labour that is already present you can either compete better (increasing wages), work smarter (be more productive so you don't need as much labour) or some other combination. That is how the economy grows per capita. That is how our productivity improves. That is supply and demand. The best employers should be able to recruit ultimately.
As an example replacing automated mechanical car washes which use no labour with hand car washes which are staffed by unskilled labourers potentially claiming tax credits being paid minimum wage is not progress.
Hand washing cars (for payment) is a backward step as far as UK productivity is concerned.
Absolutely. And it's a completely unnecessary job. The economy would survive just fine if we machine washed for payment or hand washed ourselves our vehicles.
We have our own unskilled and unemployed eligible to benefits without importing more and entitling them to our benefits too. I have no qualms with skilled, working migrants who support themselves but I see no reason to import people to claim welfare.
Why do you assume that unskilled immigrants aren't going to work and support themselves?
Are you arguing that there is no need in the UK for unskilled labour, or what?
If the unskilled immigrants can work and support themselves with zero rights to in-work benefits then I have no qualms with that as I said.
No I am saying there is a supply of unskilled labour already and we should apply the economics of supply and demand to that. I see no need to artificially inflate our supply of unskilled labour.
If a company wants to hire unskilled labour then they can compete based on supply and demand with other companies to attract that labour from the unskilled we already have and not import new unskilled labour.
There is no divine right to have vacancies filled. If you can't fill a vacancy with the unskilled labour that is already present you can either compete better (increasing wages), work smarter (be more productive so you don't need as much labour) or some other combination. That is how the economy grows per capita. That is how our productivity improves. That is supply and demand. The best employers should be able to recruit ultimately.
As an example replacing automated mechanical car washes which use no labour with hand car washes which are staffed by unskilled labourers potentially claiming tax credits being paid minimum wage is not progress.
Talking about unskilled immigrants, the Queen's Speech sounds interesting
Anmer Hall Birkhall House Craigowan Lodge Delnadamph Lodge Bagshot Park Balmoral Castle Buckingham Palace Clarence House Gatcombe Park Highgrove House Hillsborough Castle Kensington Palace Llwynywermod Nottingham Cottage Palace of Holyroodhouse Sandringham House St James's Palace Tamarisk Thatched House Lodge The Royal Lodge Windsor Castle Wren House
Does this seem a little unusual at this time of year? Maybe its routine, maybe its federal government shutdown related. Some analysts fancy 2019 is going to rather tough in the US market and economy.
No I am saying there is a supply of unskilled labour already and we should apply the economics of supply and demand to that. I see no need to artificially inflate our supply of unskilled labour.
If a company wants to hire unskilled labour then they can compete based on supply and demand with other companies to attract that labour from the unskilled we already have and not import new unskilled labour.
This whole worldview is so sick. You're talking as if a huge government bureaucracy preventing people from going where the work is across an inaginary line is the natural state of affairs and people going to work somewhere if their own free will is someone "importing" them, as if they have no agency of their own. Supply and demand isn't what you think it is. It doesn't involve a huge government bureaucracy at all. If people go where the work is, *that's supply and demand in action*.
No I am saying there is a supply of unskilled labour already and we should apply the economics of supply and demand to that. I see no need to artificially inflate our supply of unskilled labour.
If a company wants to hire unskilled labour then they can compete based on supply and demand with other companies to attract that labour from the unskilled we already have and not import new unskilled labour.
This whole worldview is so sick. You're talking as if a huge government bureaucracy preventing people from going where the work is across an inaginary line is the natural state of affairs and people going to work somewhere if their own free will is someone "importing" them, as if they have no agency of their own. Supply and demand isn't what you think it is. It doesn't involve a huge government bureaucracy at all. If people go where the work is, *that's supply and demand in action*.
I am not sure I would call Philip's worldview 'sick'. But certainly I think his is wrong and yours is right. Though I would add that one other factor that does involve the Government is the place of benefits. We do hear all too often that local unskilled labour are generally unwilling to go out and do certain jobs because they are hard and unpleasant and it is easier to stay on benefits rather than do that work. Certainly that is a driving factor in farming. I am not sure that it is a situation we should be perpetuating. But the answer to that is not to put artificial barriers in the way of the movement of labour but to make 'not working' less attractive.
Of course to do that requires a flexible, imaginative and proactive Government who recognise the need for benefits when work is not available but also recognise that those benefits need to be withheld to some extent when work is available. Unfortunately we have one party who believes benefits should always be available as an alternative to work and another party who believes that benefits should be almost non existent. Both are wrong.
Comments
Personally I think if something is going to be replaced there needs to be a clear benefit to doing so, and different platitudes about meritocracy or replacement with ceremonial presidency don't really seem worth it. If there is to be a change to our system, it would need to be top to bottom.
Anyway, I am going to bed and as I will probably be very busy for the next week I may not be able to comment. I therefore wish all at PB a very merry Christmas and a prosperous new year - especial mention however to OGH, @rcs1000 and @TSE who keep the site running and give as all a forum to meet and make awesome puns in.
Good night.
A pleasantly merry Xmas to all.
“Our politicians are so utterly shite we’d rather maintain an gigantic premium welfare state so a 92-year-old can spout banalities every Christmas.”
So perhaps it is a wonderful advert for our democracy and constitution, you are right.
It really is not that bad. And can be changed very easily, if there is public will to do so.
https://twitter.com/stevenmnuchin1/status/1076958380361543681
More like "four":
Buckingham
Kensington
St James
Holyroodhouse
No I am saying there is a supply of unskilled labour already and we should apply the economics of supply and demand to that. I see no need to artificially inflate our supply of unskilled labour.
If a company wants to hire unskilled labour then they can compete based on supply and demand with other companies to attract that labour from the unskilled we already have and not import new unskilled labour.
There is no divine right to have vacancies filled. If you can't fill a vacancy with the unskilled labour that is already present you can either compete better (increasing wages), work smarter (be more productive so you don't need as much labour) or some other combination. That is how the economy grows per capita. That is how our productivity improves. That is supply and demand. The best employers should be able to recruit ultimately.
As an example replacing automated mechanical car washes which use no labour with hand car washes which are staffed by unskilled labourers potentially claiming tax credits being paid minimum wage is not progress.
That's before counting things like Clarence House etc
Birkhall House
Craigowan Lodge
Delnadamph Lodge
Bagshot Park
Balmoral Castle
Buckingham Palace
Clarence House
Gatcombe Park
Highgrove House
Hillsborough Castle
Kensington Palace
Llwynywermod
Nottingham Cottage
Palace of Holyroodhouse
Sandringham House
St James's Palace
Tamarisk
Thatched House Lodge
The Royal Lodge
Windsor Castle
Wren House
Private property is subject to inheritance tax and if the Queen had to pay inheritance tax on Balmoral etc she may have had to sell them. But there is no inheritance tax on it because it is passed sovereign to sovereign.
So it's not really private property in any normal sense of the words.
Private property is subject to inheritance tax and if the Queen had to pay inheritance tax on Balmoral etc she may have had to sell them. But there is no inheritance tax on it because it is passed sovereign to sovereign.
So it's not really private property in any normal sense of the words.
Hand washing cars (for payment) is a backward step as far as UK productivity is concerned.
It is only those sleeping on the streets who have no shelter. Many of them, but an unknown percentage, actually choose not to have a roof over their heads and decline hostels.
It is a complicated situation that making more housing avaialable will not fully solve.
Of course to do that requires a flexible, imaginative and proactive Government who recognise the need for benefits when work is not available but also recognise that those benefits need to be withheld to some extent when work is available. Unfortunately we have one party who believes benefits should always be available as an alternative to work and another party who believes that benefits should be almost non existent. Both are wrong.