UKIP - The Future - Volume 3

[FiF]

Well much as I am not struck on Farage he makes a fair point.

[Mermaid]

FiF said:

Well much as I am not struck on Farage he makes a fair point.

Sad but true that if he became Tory leader, the Conservatives would win ditto Labour, not sure about the Liberals (their best days are over) but Greens would secure more seats

[XJ Flyer]

steveT350C said:

That seems fair enough but the same should obviously apply in the case of Chinese amongst other foreign 'investment' in UK infrastructure,industry and real estate.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Wednesday 26th November 20:51

[dandarez]

Mermaid said:

FiF said:

Well much as I am not struck on Farage he makes a fair point.

Sad but true that if he became Tory leader, the Conservatives would win ditto Labour, not sure about the Liberals (their best days are over) but Greens would secure more seats

Not sad ...because it won't happen.
Farage is the only politician left with any charisma and honesty - ie: he's alone in being on the button, the only one who answers questions direct, whereas the rest don't, or won't, or can't.

Anyway, WTH has the Greens to do with it? Win more seats? How? Disaffected Lib-Dems?
The Party with an Aussie leading it, who has lived in the UK for just 14 years.

If, god forbid, the Greens ever had any semblance of power every car would have a windmill forced on its roof.

[s2art]

XJ Flyer said:

steveT350C said:

That seems fair enough but the same should obviously apply in the case of Chinese 'investment' in UK infrastructure and real estate.

Are we giving China billions to make those investments?

[Art0ir]

Zod said:

mrpurple said:

Oh dear....vote Tory get Labour

If I lived in Doncaster and the polls looked that way on election day, I would hold my nose and vote UKIP.

Is there a precedent for this? By that I mean, say this does happen and Ed fails to get elected, however Labour still manages to form a majority.

What happens then? Do they have to elect a new PM from within the party?

[handpaper]

Art0ir said:

Zod said:

mrpurple said:

Oh dear....vote Tory get Labour

If I lived in Doncaster and the polls looked that way on election day, I would hold my nose and vote UKIP.

Is there a precedent for this? By that I mean, say this does happen and Ed fails to get elected, however Labour still manages to form a majority.

What happens then? Do they have to elect a new PM from within the party?

Constitutionally speaking, I don't think there is any requirement in law for the PM (or any other minister) be be an MP.
It would be very hard to sell to the country though, and it might be a bother if he needed inviting into the House for PMQs.....

[XJ Flyer]

s2art said:

XJ Flyer said:

steveT350C said:

That seems fair enough but the same should obviously apply in the case of Chinese 'investment' in UK infrastructure and real estate.

Are we giving China billions to make those investments?

On the basis that China was and probably still would be,just a poverty stricken Commy non entity,before we started transferring wealth and investment to take advantage of the only resource it has in the form of cheap virtually forced labour,thereby buying stuff from them that we could be making for ourselves,absolutely.

[Axionknight]

XJ Flyer said:

On the basis that China was and probably still would be,just a poverty stricken Commy non entity,before we started transferring wealth and investment to take advantage of the only resource it has in the form of cheap virtually forced labour,thereby buying stuff from them that we could be making for ourselves,absolutely.

How much do we voluntarily give them in aid each year?

[XJ Flyer]

Axionknight said:

XJ Flyer said:

On the basis that China was and probably still would be,just a poverty stricken Commy non entity,before we started transferring wealth and investment to take advantage of the only resource it has in the form of cheap virtually forced labour,thereby buying stuff from them that we could be making for ourselves,absolutely.

How much do we voluntarily give them in aid each year?

Probably about as much as our annual trade deficit with them in addition to other 'transfers' of wealth an capital.

If we're investing 'our' money earn't here in 'their' industry and then buying stuff from them that we don't need because we can make it for ourselves that is effectively giving them aid.IE exactly where and how did/does China get all the money from.In general it certainly isn't by them selling us anything that we couldn't provide for ourselves.

[s2art]

XJ Flyer said:

Axionknight said:

XJ Flyer said:

On the basis that China was and probably still would be,just a poverty stricken Commy non entity,before we started transferring wealth and investment to take advantage of the only resource it has in the form of cheap virtually forced labour,thereby buying stuff from them that we could be making for ourselves,absolutely.

How much do we voluntarily give them in aid each year?

If we're investing 'our' money earn't here in 'their' industry and then buying stuff from them that we don't need because we can make it for ourselves that is effectively giving them aid.IE exactly where and how did/does China get all the money from.In general it certainly isn't by them selling us anything that we couldn't provide for ourselves.

Sorry, but thats bollux. There are loads of things the Chinese have a comparative advantage over us, and therefore can make various things more cheaply. Rare Earth deposits for magnets for one. Trying to make everything ourselves would be an economic disaster, on par with the economics of the old USSR.

[Yazar]

Mrr T said:

Yazar said:

Mrr T said:

There are lies dammed lies and statistics.

Mrr T said:

Can you direct me to where that graph comes from? Its included in a migration watch column but there is are no links to the original source and a look at the ONS site does not show they collect those statistics.

Migration watch is a credible organisation whose founder has just been made a Lord. Charts will have been created by them from the LabourForce Survey (ONS collects).

ONS collects: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/about-ons/get-involved/t...
Releases: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/search/index.html?newque...

Normally that is what I would have said about Migration Watch, however, I did an extensive search on the ONS web site and cannot see it collects any data on earning based on country of birth. So am very suspicious.

The userguides show that they do collect the country, and also the earnings too as per links below:

Userguide vol 3 : page 16 onwards: NATIONALITY, NATIONAL IDENTITY, COUNTRY OF BIRTH http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/method-qual...
Sample summary of employment by nationality: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-market-st...
Sample data file: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-market-st...
Sample earning: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-market-st...


So the data is there, however they make it hard to get to the raw data by restricting, for example this needs a University account: http://data.ncvo.org.uk/datastore/datasets/dataset...

link said said:

The raw survey data can be downloaded from the Economic and Social Data Service, although registration or a University account is required.

But here is a summary from 2010 (page 19)

Survey said said:

EUA8 born workers are still concentrated in lower paid occupations, possibly due to their lower levels
of qualifications, or their qualifications not being recognised in the UK. This concentration has
increased since Q1 2009.

|

‘EU14’ refers to: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the
Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden and Spain.
‘EUA8’ refers to: the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia.

Again the Eu14 is skewed too, as they contain the high unemployment countries where people take any old job in the UK, as opposed to coming for a role as you would imagine many Germans would. Plus excludes the current Romania/Bulgaria which are even poorer countries.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lmac/employment-of-f...


65.5% of EUA8 in low skilled, and that is before Romania/Bulgaria



EAP= he Eastern Partnership (EaP) is a European Union initiative directed at six countries of Eastern Europe and the South Caucasus: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine.

http://www.izajoels.com/content/pdf/2193-9012-3-15...

Edited by Yazar on Wednesday 26th November 22:19

[XJ Flyer]

s2art said:

XJ Flyer said:

Axionknight said:

XJ Flyer said:

On the basis that China was and probably still would be,just a poverty stricken Commy non entity,before we started transferring wealth and investment to take advantage of the only resource it has in the form of cheap virtually forced labour,thereby buying stuff from them that we could be making for ourselves,absolutely.

How much do we voluntarily give them in aid each year?

If we're investing 'our' money earn't here in 'their' industry and then buying stuff from them that we don't need because we can make it for ourselves that is effectively giving them aid.IE exactly where and how did/does China get all the money from.In general it certainly isn't by them selling us anything that we couldn't provide for ourselves.

Sorry, but thats bollux. There are loads of things the Chinese have a comparative advantage over us, and therefore can make various things more cheaply. Rare Earth deposits for magnets for one. Trying to make everything ourselves would be an economic disaster, on par with the economics of the old USSR.

Our economy and manufacturing sector isn't exactly firing on all cylinders since we took on your ideas.China makes things 'more cheaply' because it has a massive effectively slave labour force working under a totalitarian Communist system.I don't remember any shortages of magnets before China ever became a large factor in our trade figures.That factor,like the EU,being the liability of a massive trade deficit and less work for our own workforce.

[s2art]

XJ Flyer said:

s2art said:

XJ Flyer said:

Axionknight said:

XJ Flyer said:

On the basis that China was and probably still would be,just a poverty stricken Commy non entity,before we started transferring wealth and investment to take advantage of the only resource it has in the form of cheap virtually forced labour,thereby buying stuff from them that we could be making for ourselves,absolutely.

How much do we voluntarily give them in aid each year?

If we're investing 'our' money earn't here in 'their' industry and then buying stuff from them that we don't need because we can make it for ourselves that is effectively giving them aid.IE exactly where and how did/does China get all the money from.In general it certainly isn't by them selling us anything that we couldn't provide for ourselves.

Sorry, but thats bollux. There are loads of things the Chinese have a comparative advantage over us, and therefore can make various things more cheaply. Rare Earth deposits for magnets for one. Trying to make everything ourselves would be an economic disaster, on par with the economics of the old USSR.

Our economy and manufacturing sector isn't exactly firing on all cylinders since we took on your ideas.China makes things 'more cheaply' because it has a massive effectively slave labour force working under a totalitarian Communist system.I don't remember any shortages of magnets before China ever became a large factor in our trade figures.That factor,like the EU,being the liability of a massive trade deficit and less work for our own workforce.

Nope. To make said magnets we would have to buy from China. And they are reluctant to sell. Think of it in a similar way to Arabs and Oil.

[XJ Flyer]

s2art said:

XJ Flyer said:

s2art said:

XJ Flyer said:

Axionknight said:

XJ Flyer said:

On the basis that China was and probably still would be,just a poverty stricken Commy non entity,before we started transferring wealth and investment to take advantage of the only resource it has in the form of cheap virtually forced labour,thereby buying stuff from them that we could be making for ourselves,absolutely.

How much do we voluntarily give them in aid each year?

If we're investing 'our' money earn't here in 'their' industry and then buying stuff from them that we don't need because we can make it for ourselves that is effectively giving them aid.IE exactly where and how did/does China get all the money from.In general it certainly isn't by them selling us anything that we couldn't provide for ourselves.

Sorry, but thats bollux. There are loads of things the Chinese have a comparative advantage over us, and therefore can make various things more cheaply. Rare Earth deposits for magnets for one. Trying to make everything ourselves would be an economic disaster, on par with the economics of the old USSR.

Our economy and manufacturing sector isn't exactly firing on all cylinders since we took on your ideas.China makes things 'more cheaply' because it has a massive effectively slave labour force working under a totalitarian Communist system.I don't remember any shortages of magnets before China ever became a large factor in our trade figures.That factor,like the EU,being the liability of a massive trade deficit and less work for our own workforce.

Nope. To make said magnets we would have to buy from China. And they are reluctant to sell. Think of it in a similar way to Arabs and Oil.

So our current trade deficit with China is all made up of the import of essential raw materials for the manufacture of magnets that can't be sourced elsewhere and that deficit has existed since at least the end of WW2.At least that's the CBI version of history.

[Axionknight]

XJ Flyer said:

Probablyabout as much as our annual trade deficit with them in addition to other 'transfers' of wealth an capital.

If we're investing 'our' money earn't here in 'their' industry and then buying stuff from them that we don't need because we can make it for ourselves that is effectively giving them aid.IE exactly where and how did/does China get all the money from.In general it certainly isn't by them selling us anything that we couldn't provide for ourselves.

Ding ding ding ding!

[Yazar]

Theresa May accused of personally delaying critical reports on immigration

Chief inspector of borders and immigration claims his role is being compromised as the home secretary sits on findings


http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/26/the...

[s2art]

XJ Flyer said:

s2art said:

XJ Flyer said:

s2art said:

XJ Flyer said:

Axionknight said:

XJ Flyer said:

On the basis that China was and probably still would be,just a poverty stricken Commy non entity,before we started transferring wealth and investment to take advantage of the only resource it has in the form of cheap virtually forced labour,thereby buying stuff from them that we could be making for ourselves,absolutely.

How much do we voluntarily give them in aid each year?

If we're investing 'our' money earn't here in 'their' industry and then buying stuff from them that we don't need because we can make it for ourselves that is effectively giving them aid.IE exactly where and how did/does China get all the money from.In general it certainly isn't by them selling us anything that we couldn't provide for ourselves.

Sorry, but thats bollux. There are loads of things the Chinese have a comparative advantage over us, and therefore can make various things more cheaply. Rare Earth deposits for magnets for one. Trying to make everything ourselves would be an economic disaster, on par with the economics of the old USSR.

Our economy and manufacturing sector isn't exactly firing on all cylinders since we took on your ideas.China makes things 'more cheaply' because it has a massive effectively slave labour force working under a totalitarian Communist system.I don't remember any shortages of magnets before China ever became a large factor in our trade figures.That factor,like the EU,being the liability of a massive trade deficit and less work for our own workforce.

Nope. To make said magnets we would have to buy from China. And they are reluctant to sell. Think of it in a similar way to Arabs and Oil.

So our current trade deficit with China is all made up of the import of essential raw materials for the manufacture of magnets that can't be sourced elsewhere and that deficit has existed since at least the end of WW2.At least that's the CBI version of history.

Its just part of the story. And until someone else (USA?) opens up some mines, yes China is the source. Either accept the theory of comparative advantage or offer an alternative explanation.

[Yazar]

XJ Flyer said:

So our current trade deficit with China is all made up of the import of essential raw materials for the manufacture of magnets that can't be sourced elsewhere and that deficit has existed since at least the end of WW2.At least that's the CBI version of history.

2010 breakdown of trade with China: http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/50720000/gif...

42% of what we buy from China is 'Misc Manufactured Articles'. This number may match Primark's sales figures

Edited by Yazar on Wednesday 26th November 23:19

[XJ Flyer]

s2art said:

XJ Flyer said:

So our current trade deficit with China is all made up of the import of essential raw materials for the manufacture of magnets that can't be sourced elsewhere and that deficit has existed since at least the end of WW2.At least that's the CBI version of history.

Its just part of the story. And until someone else (USA?) opens up some mines, yes China is the source. Either accept the theory of comparative advantage or offer an alternative explanation.

As you've admitted the product in question is only 'part of the story' of the trade deficit between us and China.In which case everything which involves us buying stuff from them that we can make for ourselves is a case of foreign aid to China.As for China being the largest producer that isn't the same thing as saying it has the largest reserves worldwide and it is also the largest net consumer.In addition to which the evidence seems to suggest that China's large producer status has been the result of predatory pricing causing the closure of more expensive production operations in the US etc.Much like the UK coal mining industry was closed down.

IE Chinese rare earth 'production' isn't the same thing as available 'reserves' or net demand.Let alone providing evidence that the global free market economy isn't effectively just a foreign aid scam for the benefit of China.