OT. The futures Bright, the Futures Brexit!!!

[swaledale]

That is the place of the idealist, rather than the pragmatist? Many years ago I would, and did, share your views on a lot of these things rA, but have slowly come to realise that they have no traction in real life.

The pursuit of equality is a senseless pursuit, for it can never be achieved. All people have different skill sets, some of which are in greater demand than others: and are remunerated accordingly.

The skill sets applicable to the armed forces are an ability to die a death and happily kill other people, to do what you are told and to learn to do whatever you are told to do to carry out your job. For which you are remunerated sufficiently to be attracted to the role in sufficient numbers.

So the lives lost were not "unnecessary" but were a direct result of the individual knowingly accepting the risk, taking up the job and its risk premium enhanced remuneration. Nobody forced the individuals to take up that job and remuneration package (contrast the two world wars where conscription existed).

Every death is unfortunate, sad for all the relatives and friends etc, but when you voluntarily put yourself out there in that position, it's not unnecessary. One could almost argue that its disrespectful to those killed to describe what they were doing as unnecessary.

Clearly the remuneration package is not attractive enough as the Armed Forces are not meeting their recruitment targets (inded haven't for a number of years) and having difficulty attracting people.!

I doubt that it was the remuneration package that was the attraction for the front line personnel, more that it as the best job offer, together with skills training that was available to many, which would enable better employment post armed forces. Now with effectively full employment (classed as below 4.5%) it seems it isn't an attractive career choice.

Of course that begs the question just where will the labour force come from post Brexit? There are going to be a lot of low paid service industry, agriculture, processing carer and NHS jobs available with no takers!

[MadAmster]

Lucky for you then Geoff that sufficient people have volunteered their lives so you can speak so freely But the 243,000 who died in two world wars didn't volunteer they were conscripted

Not sure where you get the 243,000 from Mista unless that is the figure of conscripts who died and the other 643,000 were volunteers. 886,000 members of the UK Armed Forces died in World War I. That total soared way over a million when WWII is added in.

[AdiSalisbury]

Of course that begs the question just where will the labour force come from post Brexit? There are going to be a lot of low paid service industry, agriculture, processing carer and NHS jobs available with no takers!

Back on subject, very nicely done. Why would it significantly change? Leaving doesn't mean no immigration and immediate deportation.

[Geoff Parkstone]

The labour will come from exactly the same place that it does now, but potentially on a controlled, rather than open, basis. All we need would be a clearing house / work permit /points system like many other countries have. An end to an open door, but a ticket required. Employers will have to think ahead a bit.

This may mean that there isn't a ready pool of workers from overseas, some may prefer to work in other EU countries, so there may be less availability. In this case those people who voted for Brexit "cos those naughty Eastern Europeans are stealing our jobs" will be more than happy to get off their arses, come off benefits and work for minimum wage (or less). Win win 😉😉

[Geoff Parkstone]

Before you get all angst ridden at my final elitist paragraph, rA, it was a joke. Of course those idle fekkers won't come off benefits for an Eastern European style remuneration package. Have to pay for my house, perish the thought: its my right... 😉

[ramAnag]

Before you get all angst ridden at my final elitist paragraph, rA, it was a joke. Of course those idle fekkers won't come off benefits for an Eastern European style remuneration package. Have to pay for my house, perish the thought: its my right... 😉

Tbf GP...I only suggested you sounded ‘elitist’ in your attitude to the armed forces yesterday.
As a matter of fact I was thinking how much sense, and irony, there was in your previous post.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Indeed. Dogs, mangers etc.

I don't want to do your job but I'll defend my right to stop you doing it to the bitter end.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Sort of attitude that gives Brexiteers a bad name, and if the current impasse pisses them off, then I will derive some comfort from it.

[swaledale]

The labour will come from exactly the same place that it does now, but potentially on a controlled, rather than open, basis. All we need would be a clearing house / work permit /points system like many other countries have. An end to an open door, but a ticket required. Employers will have to think ahead a bit.

This may mean that there isn't a ready pool of workers from overseas, some may prefer to work in other EU countries, so there may be less availability. In this case those people who voted for Brexit "cos those naughty Eastern Europeans are stealing our jobs" will be more than happy to get off their arses, come off benefits and work for minimum wage (or less). Win win 😉😉

Except, we have full employment, so there isn't a huge pool of labour available. Though there again we might not have that problem because over the past 3 years we have been losing tens of thousands of jobs and billions in investment and economic activity and of course tax revenue as firms relocate their operations into the EU, mind you this wont affect a lot of the Brexiteers as they are mainly highly skilled jobs, but if the no deal scenario kicks in, then many thousands more low to medium skilled jobs will go as industries relocate or cease operations.

If it wasn't so serious it would be funny seeing the faces of those who voted leave (apart from the older retired nostalgia geeks of course) when they realise Brexit has completely ****ed up the economy for 2 or 3 decades.

[MadAmster]

No arguing with the given statistics on "full employment", Swale. Or is there? How many of those "in jobs" people are in are full time jobs? Nothing wtrong with part time jobs. There have always been part timers and always will be. In the not too distant past, however, people working part time did so out of choice. It seems, and I may be wrong, that today, a higher than previously number of those included in the number of employed people are either part time (as there aren't full time jobs available) or on those awful zero hours contracts and some of those frequently get just a couple of hours a week when, I suspect, a high % of them would prefer a "proper job".

[swaledale]

No arguing with the given statistics on "full employment", Swale. Or is there? How many of those "in jobs" people are in are full time jobs? Nothing wtrong with part time jobs. There have always been part timers and always will be. In the not too distant past, however, people working part time did so out of choice. It seems, and I may be wrong, that today, a higher than previously number of those included in the number of employed people are either part time (as there aren't full time jobs available) or on those awful zero hours contracts and some of those frequently get just a couple of hours a week when, I suspect, a high % of them would prefer a "proper job".

I always treat any government statistic with caution, but I know from experience that there are not many good candidates out there for jobs at any skill level. Also one has to be careful calling zero hours contracts awful, not all are and suit some peoples circumstances, it is as with all things how such contracts are applied that makes the difference.

There are some pretty ****ty full time contracts with hours and shifts that any reasonable human being would not inflict on another but thats a different story.

[MadAmster]

I always treat any government statistic with caution, but I know from experience that there are not many good candidates out there for jobs at any skill level. Also one has to be careful calling zero hours contracts awful, not all are and suit some peoples circumstances, it is as with all things how such contracts are applied that makes the difference.

There are some pretty ****ty full time contracts with hours and shifts that any reasonable human being would not inflict on another but thats a different story.

Correct Swale, not all zero hour contracts are bad.

s***ty contracts with anti social hours. Junior doctor for a start, working in excess of 100 hours a week. We all know why that is and, due to the lack of Brits training to be doctors (nurses too) we have a constant need for immigrant workers.

A friend of mine works in the care industry. 3 day long shifts are part of the package. Sometimes she gets her full whack of sleep during a shift. At other times she might get less than 6 hours sleep over the 3 days.

What bugs me is the same old, same old from the politicians. Claiming there are more people working than ever before and that unemployment is low, even claiming it as virtually full employment levels. IMO, one hour a week isn't working, it isn't a job. People are working 3 and more jobs of varying lengths in hours and still not getting by. It is also my opinion that this scenario is something that those in power have nudged in, bit by bit, over the past 30 or so years.

The first party that promises to derail the corporate gravy train and even things out will win a landslide at a General Election. What everybody needs to realise though is that a single country can't do it alone. If the UK starts taxing Apple, Google et al the way they should be taxed, you can guarantee that they will move their HQ and/or Service Centres to a country that won't tax them. Hitting the multinationals has to be a concerted worldwide action to help the man in the street.

[Trickytreesreds]

Mostly correct Mad.

The country does need immigrants. I don't think anyone denies that.
What it doesn't need is an open door policy and lax laws that allow people who enter legally, to slip away when their time is up,

Immigrants that skilled are welcome. Immigrants that are basic labour are welcome as needed.
But folks forget that too much immigration is a cause of the misery highlighted. You mentioned doctors /nurses. Of course we need them. But for every doctor needed, how many migrants have made that need a necessity?
It drives down wages, with the massive pool available. It loads the public services. The tax payer has to address the balance.

Other countries manage to run a fair migration policy. What's our problem?
Employers take advantage of the situation and the tax payer

[MadAmster]

Absolutely nothing wrong, IMO, in a points style system like those used in Australia and New Zealand. I'd be in favour.

Or the Swiss system where you get a "work visa", vaild for x amount of years, provided you meet their skills needs. When it expires, you can get a new one if you have remained in work. If not, no visa and off you jolly well go.

I also have nothing against PROPER refugees. When you see those coming ashore from those rubber dinghies or those rescued out at sea, they all seem to be young adult males. Very few women, very few children, no passport or other ID but most seem to have their phones up and running......

[Geoff Parkstone]

A few minefields along the beaches of the south coast will soon deal with those economic "refugees".

After all most people go on holiday yo Spain now, so they are mainly deserted