How Long Can the Coalition Survive

[Phil D. Rolls]

Reports this morning (on Andrew Marr show) that a group of Liberals are thinking of siding with Labour against the 20% VAT rise. I wonder how fragile this unholy alliance actually is, and at what point it will no longer be sustainable.

[Hibbyradge]

Clegg is proving himself to be just another self seeking politician and I'm certain that this won't sit well with many in his party.

The extent and timescale of the austerity measures are cynical and politically motivated. They are designed to bring in some right wing policies which the Tories could only have dreamed about prior to the economic downturn, and they have no regard to the severity of the pain it will cause, as long as most of it can be finished, just in time for the election campaign in 5 years.

Benefit cuts, an arbitary reduction of 25% in the Public Sector, VAT up to 20%, attacks on the disabled and reneaging on Pension commitments is not an easy pill for many in the Liberal Party, particularly as they were revelling in their newly found status as the most left wing of the major parties.

Having said all that, a few MP's thinking about voting against the coalition is a long way from the coalition falling.

I've voted Liberal since 1997, initially to oust Lord James Douglas Hamilton and subsequently to keep the Tory candidate out.

That won't be happening again and I'll be making sure my Liberal MSP and MP are aware of that.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Clegg is proving himself to be just another self seeking politician and I'm certain that this won't sit well with many in his party.

The extent and timescale of the austerity measures are cynical and politically motivated. They are designed to bring in some right wing policies which the Tories could only have dreamed about prior to the economic downturn, and they have no regard to the severity of the pain it will cause, as long as most of it can be finished, just in time for the election campaign in 5 years.

Benefit cuts, an arbitary reduction of 25% in the Public Sector, VAT up to 20%, attacks on the disabled and reneaging on Pension commitments is not an easy pill for many in the Liberal Party, particularly as they were revelling in their newly found status as the most left wing of the major parties.

Having said all that, a few MP's thinking about voting against the coalition is a long way from the coalition falling.

I've voted Liberal since 1997, initially to oust Lord James Douglas Hamilton and subsequently to keep the Tory candidate out.

That won't be happening again and I'll be making sure my Liberal MSP and MP are aware of that.

I don't think this is anything like the beginning of the end, or even the end of the beginning. I just wonder at what point the Liberal rank and file will turn on King Rat Clegg. I don't think he is in for a rousing welcome at his party conference this year.

He could well be in for a Tribune style backlash, ironically from those who quit Labour over that very issue.

[GlesgaeHibby]

Reports this morning (on Andrew Marr show) that a group of Liberals are thinking of siding with Labour against the 20% VAT rise. I wonder how fragile this unholy alliance actually is, and at what point it will no longer be sustainable.

The BBC and Local Councils have October 14th pencilled in for a general election.

The spending review in the autumn could well be the last straw for the coalition, as there are already many liberals angry at the VAT rise, as well as Tories angry about Lib Dems in key seats, and gaining concessions in terms of policy.

[Toaods]

Had a wee chortle as Vince Cable was interviewed on Andew Marr...started spouting off about all the bank comntrols he intends to introduce and Marr true to form leapt on with "so who is in charge of these decisions....you or the Chancellor?" :faf:


mildy squirming, Cable veers back on track with the newage 'we are doing it jointly" guff.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Had a wee chortle as Vince Cable was interviewed on Andew Marr...started spouting off about all the bank comntrols he intends to introduce and Marr true to form leapt on with "so who is in charge of these decisions....you or the Chancellor?" :faf:


mildy squirming, Cable veers back on track with the newage 'we are doing it jointly" guff.

I loved Alistair Campbell's description of Cable after the election, "he's like a Blackburn fan that has found himself in the Burnley end".

[heretoday]

Whenever I see Clegg he looks increasingly unhappy.

The Lib Dem conference in the autumn should be fun. There will some shouting from the floor and walkouts galore I bet! Quite right too. It's really extraordinary how the party has been railroaded into coalition with a right wing party - all in the name of seeking power at any price.

[Betty Boop]

What about Ian Duncan Smith's proposal, for the unemployed to up sticks, and move to where the jobs are ? Where are these jobs and guarantees of accomodation ?

[Toaods]

What about Ian Duncan Smith's proposal, for the unemployed to up sticks, and move to where the jobs are ? Where are these jobs and guarantees of accomodation ?

it wasn't aimed at all of the unemployed...just "the many who do want to get work and not claim benefits"...:rolleyes:

[Woody1985]

I love it when people are surprised that politicians turn out to be full of self interest.

I personally think that a mixture of tories and the liberals will give a good way out to the mess we're in.

Can I ask why no one had questioned if these taxes will be reversed when we sell the banks off?

We should have that promise that once the deficit is returned it can go back down.

[Hibbyradge]

What about Ian Duncan Smith's proposal, for the unemployed to up sticks, and move to where the jobs are ? Where are these jobs and guarantees of accomodation ?

Same old Tories.

"I grew up in the '30s with an unemployed father. He didn't riot. He got on his bike and looked for work, and he kept looking 'til he found it"

Norman Tebbit - 1981.

[Beefster]

What about Ian Duncan Smith's proposal, for the unemployed to up sticks, and move to where the jobs are ? Where are these jobs and guarantees of accomodation ?

He said that if unemployed folk living in council housing want to move to areas where jobs exist, the government will give them incentives and sort out housing for them. You disagree with the principle?

[Phil D. Rolls]

What about Ian Duncan Smith's proposal, for the unemployed to up sticks, and move to where the jobs are ? Where are these jobs and guarantees of accomodation ?

What an admission of failure on their part. "We can't and won't create solutions where you live, so why not move and provide cheap labour where the work is."


I love it when people are surprised that politicians turn out to be full of self interest.

I personally think that a mixture of tories and the liberals will give a good way out to the mess we're in.

Can I ask why no one had questioned if these taxes will be reversed when we sell the banks off?

We should have that promise that once the deficit is returned it can go back down.

Me too. :agree:

[ballengeich]

What an admission of failure on their part. "We can't and won't create solutions where you live, so why not move and provide cheap labour where the work is."


What? Have we run out of East Europeans?

[Phil D. Rolls]

What? Have we run out of East Europeans?

It would appear so.:agree:

[Betty Boop]

He said that if unemployed folk living in council housing want to move to areas where jobs exist, the government will give them incentives and sort out housing for them. You disagree with the principle?

I think it is unrealistic. There is a lack of affordable housing as it is, unless IDS thinks that more people will rent from the private sector. However that avenue will be closed to those on low incomes also, as the Chancellor has cut housing benefit. :grr:

[hibsbollah]

As much as I dislike the man himself, IDS at least has a genuine interest in and knowledge of his subject. The Social Justice thinktank he's involved with has done some excellent work, and does not reflect an 'on your bike' agenda.

[Borders Hibby]

As much as I dislike the man himself, IDS at least has a genuine interest in and knowledge of his subject. The Social Justice thinktank he's involved with has done some excellent work, and does not reflect an 'on your bike' agenda.

Why dont they move the parliament and civil service to birmingham to solve the unemployment in the east midlands and be in the centre of the country? Turn the parliament into a museum and charge tourists. Or would MPs not like to be moved from the bright lights?

[heretoday]

As much as I dislike the man himself, IDS at least has a genuine interest in and knowledge of his subject. The Social Justice thinktank he's involved with has done some excellent work, and does not reflect an 'on your bike' agenda.

For once, I have to say a politician has been using his brain and has come up with an idea. Help the unemployed travel to areas of the country where there are jobs.

However, it's like the Gove schools idea - fine until you see all the potential flaws. Are you going to restrict assistance to single people or are whole families going to up sticks and move?

What happens when the job comes to an end? Will it not then be a case of swapping life in one sink estate for another?

At least it's better than the stick approach - hammering the jobless when they know there are no jobs.

[Leicester Fan]

Why dont they move the parliament and civil service to birmingham to solve the unemployment in the east midlands and be in the centre of the country? Turn the parliament into a museum and charge tourists. Or would MPs not like to be moved from the bright lights?
Birmingham is in the West Midlands.

[(((Fergus)))]

People have always migrated for economic reasons. Why shouldn't they now?

If the workplace is not established and the investor just so happens to find all the skills he needs in a particular location, then obviously set up shop there.

If the workplace is already established, and people are already employed and settled there, then get on your bloody bike you work-shy basturt.

Are people just looking for things to complain about? :confused:

[Borders Hibby]

Birmingham is in the West Midlands.

My apologies. Its terrible when we get mistaken for our near neighbours!:wink:

I should know better though, my family was originally from Loughborough!

[J-C]

The Liberals were desperate to get some sort of power share and they didn't mind who it was with. They've thrown out the window quite a few of their policies to appease the Tories, the public will turn their back on them and so will a few of their own MP's.

[Mibbes Aye]

He said that if unemployed folk living in council housing want to move to areas where jobs exist, the government will give them incentives and sort out housing for them. You disagree with the principle?

Out of curiosity, how will they do that?

[Beefster]

Out of curiosity, how will they do that?

I've no idea but I think, seeing as the principle is sound, they should be given time to see if they can get it to work.

[Mibbes Aye]

I've no idea but I think, seeing as the principle is sound, they should be given time to see if they can get it to work.

How can the principle be sound?

You're saying that people will be subsidised to move to areas where they will supposedly find work but you have no idea where they are going to live when they get there???

At the risk of sounding negative I'd say the principle maybe isn't quite that sound after all.

And how can it be given time to work? Surely a precursor of making it happen is having the housing for these people to move to in the first place? In which case it should be the first thing that's been worked out.

A complete shambles of an attempt at policymaking - the kindest interpretation would be that it was made up on the spot without being fully thought through because the alternatives paint the Government in an even worse light.

[One Day Soon]

How can the principle be sound?

You're saying that people will be subsidised to move to areas where they will supposedly find work but you have no idea where they are going to live when they get there???

At the risk of sounding negative I'd say the principle maybe isn't quite that sound after all.

And how can it be given time to work? Surely a precursor of making it happen is having the housing for these people to move to in the first place? In which case it should be the first thing that's been worked out.

A complete shambles of an attempt at policymaking - the kindest interpretation would be that it was made up on the spot without being fully thought through because the alternatives paint the Government in an even worse light.


It is exactly the kind of cheap spin ****** that the Tories used to berate new Labour for. Meaningless cobblers devised purely for media consumption.

[Beefster]

How can the principle be sound?

You're saying that people will be subsidised to move to areas where they will supposedly find work but you have no idea where they are going to live when they get there???

At the risk of sounding negative I'd say the principle maybe isn't quite that sound after all.

And how can it be given time to work? Surely a precursor of making it happen is having the housing for these people to move to in the first place? In which case it should be the first thing that's been worked out.

A complete shambles of an attempt at policymaking - the kindest interpretation would be that it was made up on the spot without being fully thought through because the alternatives paint the Government in an even worse light.

You don't think economic migration is a sound principle?

How do you know that there isn't housing? I said that I didn't know how it was going to work, I didn't say that the government didn't have an idea. If you don't think that Duncan Smith has done more than take a cursory look into it, you're kidding yourself.

You may not like the Tories but I'd be surprised if there was anyone more knowledgeable in parliament than Duncan Smith about poverty and long-term unemployment.

[bighairyfaeleith]

You don't think economic migration is a sound principle?

How do you know that there isn't housing? I said that I didn't know how it was going to work, I didn't say that the government didn't have an idea. If you don't think that Duncan Smith has done more than take a cursory look into it, you're kidding yourself.

You may not like the Tories but I'd be surprised if there was anyone more knowledgeable in parliament than Duncan Smith about poverty and long-term unemployment.

Aye, cos he is well paid and certainly not under fed:greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

You don't think economic migration is a sound principle?

How do you know that there isn't housing? I said that I didn't know how it was going to work, I didn't say that the government didn't have an idea. If you don't think that Duncan Smith has done more than take a cursory look into it, you're kidding yourself.

You may not like the Tories but I'd be surprised if there was anyone more knowledgeable in parliament than Duncan Smith about poverty and long-term unemployment.

What sort of economic migration is it, telling people to move in order to work but having nowhere for them to stay when they get there?

There are nearly five million people on council house waiting lists. There is a projected shortfall of a million homes by 2020, the majority of which is "affordable" i.e. housing for poorer families. That's why I suspect there might be difficulties around housing.

If IDS is so knowledgable and has thought all this through, why has he not gone public on where people are supposed to live.

It's basic stuff - how can you move somewhere when there's nowhere for you to live when you get there?

[Beefster]

What sort of economic migration is it, telling people to move in order to work but having nowhere for them to stay when they get there?

There are nearly five million people on council house waiting lists. There is a projected shortfall of a million homes by 2020, the majority of which is "affordable" i.e. housing for poorer families. That's why I suspect there might be difficulties around housing.

If IDS is so knowledgable and has thought all this through, why has he not gone public on where people are supposed to live.

It's basic stuff - how can you move somewhere when there's nowhere for you to live when you get there?

You're misrepresenting what was said. I'm not sure if this is deliberate or your 'Tory hating' filter kicking in.

He's said that, if unemployed folk in council housing want to move to gain employment, the government will help them. There's no 'telling'. Incentives to move to where the jobs are.

Go ahead and blindly criticise every idea they come with by all means though.

[hibsbollah]

I think this policy is an acknowledgement of failure of successive governments to address the North-South divide. It's radical in its remedy, especially as it corresponds with getting rid of the Regional Development Agencies in England. The message is quite clear; there are areas in Britain that we are giving up on.

It should stimulate debate if nothing else.

[Mibbes Aye]

You're misrepresenting what was said. I'm not sure if this is deliberate or your 'Tory hating' filter kicking in.

He's said that, if unemployed folk in council housing want to move to gain employment, the government will help them. There's no 'telling'. Incentives to move to where the jobs are.

Go ahead and blindly criticise every idea they come with by all means though.

"Blindly criticise..."???

I took my son for a week in the West Highlands and islands last Autumn (he was four at the time).

When I told him we were going away, his first question was "Where are we going to stay?"

If a four-year old can grasp it Beefster, surely it's not beyond a Cabinet minister?

I hear what you're saying about people being offered subsidies (by the way, where's the money coming from?).

I'm simply asking how this wave of economic migration is expected to be housed.

I don't think that's blindly critical - it's merely asking a question that a pre-school child had the capacity to ask...

[Beefster]

"Blindly criticise..."???

I took my son for a week in the West Highlands and islands last Autumn (he was four at the time).

When I told him we were going away, his first question was "Where are we going to stay?"

If a four-year old can grasp it Beefster, surely it's not beyond a Cabinet minister?

I hear what you're saying about people being offered subsidies (by the way, where's the money coming from?).

I'm simply asking how this wave of economic migration is expected to be housed.

I don't think that's blindly critical - it's merely asking a question that a pre-school child had the capacity to ask...

I'd imagine that the plan is that the incentives will be paid by the fact that they won't be unemployed any longer and will possibly be paying tax and NI.

And I'm saying give them a chance to work it out. If they get it wrong or it's not possible, criticise them. You're criticising them because you think they can't do it. A bit like criticising a someone before an exam because you think they're going to fail.

[Mibbes Aye]

I'd imagine that the plan is that the incentives will be paid by the fact that they won't be unemployed any longer and will possibly be paying tax and NI..

Right. So the money's not there upfront. In a period of the worst spending cuts in the history of ever, the money for this is based on a gamble, or if I was being kind, an assumption.

An assumption that people move to these areas and actually get work. But what guarantee is there that they will get a job? What guarantee is there that their skills, experience and qualifications match those these yet-to-be identified employers are seeking? Given this was being talked about in terms of the more deprived estates it seems reasonable to assume lower attainment.

Is the Government going to compel employers to take on people who move? Or is it only going to offer incentives after people have found work?


And I'm saying give them a chance to work it out. If they get it wrong or it's not possible, criticise them. You're criticising them because you think they can't do it. A bit like criticising a someone before an exam because you think they're going to fail.

Where's the criticism in asking where the houses are to accommodate this economic migration? Nobody seems to know.

Given that it now appears that the Tory spending cuts will lead to even greater job losses in the private sector than the public, it might be worthwhile asking where the jobs are to accommodate this economic migration as well?

[RyeSloan]

Right. So the money's not there upfront. In a period of the worst spending cuts in the history of ever, the money for this is based on a gamble, or if I was being kind, an assumption.

An assumption that people move to these areas and actually get work. But what guarantee is there that they will get a job? What guarantee is there that their skills, experience and qualifications match those these yet-to-be identified employers are seeking? Given this was being talked about in terms of the more deprived estates it seems reasonable to assume lower attainment.

Is the Government going to compel employers to take on people who move? Or is it only going to offer incentives after people have found work?



Where's the criticism in asking where the houses are to accommodate this economic migration? Nobody seems to know.

Given that it now appears that the Tory spending cuts will lead to even greater job losses in the private sector than the public, it might be worthwhile asking where the jobs are to accommodate this economic migration as well?

Including yourself, you have assumed there is no housing for this migraiton...there may be substantial amounts available...700,000 empty homes at the end of 2009. Granted most are privately owned but that in itself should not be a barrier to government assisted economic migration.

I don't especially think the idea is any sort of panacea to the ills of the country (which of course you have Labour's decade long overspend to largely thank for causing) but to dismiss it out of hand by glibly saying 'where will they stay' when you have no idea of the numbers or direction of the movement does indeed smack of 'its a tory idea so it must be bad' kind of attitude.

[Mibbes Aye]

Including yourself, you have assumed there is no housing for this migraiton...there may be substantial amounts available...700,000 empty homes at the end of 2009. Granted most are privately owned but that in itself should not be a barrier to government assisted economic migration.

I don't especially think the idea is any sort of panacea to the ills of the country (which of course you have Labour's decade long overspend to largely thank for causing) but to dismiss it out of hand by glibly saying 'where will they stay' when you have no idea of the numbers or direction of the movement does indeed smack of 'its a tory idea so it must be bad' kind of attitude.





Good try SiMar but I pointed out some of the stats on the shortage of affordable housing and council housing earlier in the thread.

It's disappointing that someone sticking up for the Government's new policy can only find excuses around blaming Labour.

On the other hand it's amusing to see how state intervention is suddenly okay - "smaller government" I assume :greengrin. These privately-owned houses you mention - are the Government going to buy them up and renovate them? If I was a seller I'd know a captive market when I saw one. Or maybe the Government will introduce compulsory purchase orders :greengrin. Nevertheless,how are they going to pay for them?......

Fact is, this wasn't thought through in the slightest was it? It's not me selling it, nor you, it's the Government.

And what with them being the Government and that, it's surely not too much to ask that they're capable of explaining where people are supposed to live, if they're being encouraged to migrate.

[Phil D. Rolls]

So how will these issues affect the harmony of the coalition?:cool2:

[One Day Soon]

You don't think economic migration is a sound principle?

How do you know that there isn't housing? I said that I didn't know how it was going to work, I didn't say that the government didn't have an idea. If you don't think that Duncan Smith has done more than take a cursory look into it, you're kidding yourself.

You may not like the Tories but I'd be surprised if there was anyone more knowledgeable in parliament than Duncan Smith about poverty and long-term unemployment.

I see you retain your sense of humour.

[Beefster]

I see you retain your sense of humour.

Yet you don't name the MPs you have in mind.

Has any other current MP, of any persuasion, set up a independent think tank to look into the root causes and potential solutions of/to poverty?

I'm betting not. I'm sure you'll be able to name a Labour politician who has been sitting on his arse in the Houses of Common and doing some reading as the top dude on poverty though.

[marinello59]

Yet you don't name the MPs you have in mind.

Has any other current MP, of any persuasion, set up a independent think tank to look into the root causes and potential solutions of/to poverty?

I'm betting not. I'm sure you'll be able to name a Labour politician who has been sitting on his arse in the Houses of Common and doing some reading as the top dude on poverty though.
:agree:
I may not agree with IDS on their solutions but he at least has a genuine desire to do something. Maybe I misread it but I thought his thinking came from a recognition that getting a tenancy in another area as secure as that already held was a problem. Hence the reason why those moving for employment reasons would go to the top of housing waiting lists?
The so called Peoples Party were happy to ignore the problems faced by the poorest in society as long as their were votes to be won from a very well off middle class. Now they will probably content themselves with sniping from the sidelines, (all ideas will be strangled at birth as being unworkable) whilst smugly comforting themselves with the thought that their political purity is intact. Something has to be down and really, when it comes to helping a sector of society that has been ignored for decades, I don't care if it is a Tory toff who leads the charge.

[bighairyfaeleith]

:agree:
I may not agree with IDS on their solutions but he at least has a genuine desire to do something. Maybe I misread it but I thought his thinking came from a recognition that getting a tenancy in another area as secure as that already held was a problem. Hence the reason why those moving for employment reasons would go to the top of housing waiting lists?
The so called Peoples Party were happy to ignore the problems faced by the poorest in society as long as their were votes to be won from a very well off middle class. Now they will probably content themselves with sniping from the sidelines, (all ideas will be strangled at birth as being unworkable) whilst smugly comforting themselves with the thought that their political purity is intact. Something has to be down and really, when it comes to helping a sector of society that has been ignored for decades, I don't care if it is a Tory toff who leads the charge.

Everyone agrees with the principle of helping the unemployed get back into work. But lets look at what we know for a fact

The tories are about to put a futher 700,000 out of work from the public sector. A further 600,00 are projected to be made unemployed in the private sector (not sure the term of this one, but read it this mroning)

The tories fiscal plans are all based upon the private sector providing 2.5million jobs to give us a net increase of 1.2 million jobs.

Nothing to back up where these jobs will come from, we have no new inductries appearing, the banks are not recruiting, we don't make cars anymore, very few grants available to small companies (I own a small company so I know this bit to be true). It's all just pie in the sky stuff so the tories can keep there primary voters happy. Most tories won't be affected, but traditional labour / Lib Dems will be.

Now as for people getting houses if they are moving for a job, well it sounds very nice but again no hard facts to back it up. The government owns no houses, because the tories sold them all. They can't afford to buy any because we have too much debt racked up by successive governments (yes not just labour)

Also, would it not be better to attract industry to setup were people live. Surely that would cost less????

[Beefster]

Everyone agrees with the principle of helping the unemployed get back into work. But lets look at what we know for a fact

The tories are about to put a futher 700,000 out of work from the public sector. A further 600,00 are projected to be made unemployed in the private sector (not sure the term of this one, but read it this mroning)

The tories fiscal plans are all based upon the private sector providing 2.5million jobs to give us a net increase of 1.2 million jobs.

Nothing to back up where these jobs will come from, we have no new inductries appearing, the banks are not recruiting, we don't make cars anymore, very few grants available to small companies (I own a small company so I know this bit to be true). It's all just pie in the sky stuff so the tories can keep there primary voters happy. Most tories won't be affected, but traditional labour / Lib Dems will be.

Now as for people getting houses if they are moving for a job, well it sounds very nice but again no hard facts to back it up. The government owns no houses, because the tories sold them all. They can't afford to buy any because we have too much debt racked up by successive governments (yes not just labour)

Also, would it not be better to attract industry to setup were people live. Surely that would cost less????

So you believe the projected job losses but not the projected job gains? Are you serious?

[marinello59]

Everyone agrees with the principle of helping the unemployed get back into work. But lets look at what we know for a fact

The tories are about to put a futher 700,000 out of work from the public sector. A further 600,00 are projected to be made unemployed in the private sector (not sure the term of this one, but read it this mroning)

The tories fiscal plans are all based upon the private sector providing 2.5million jobs to give us a net increase of 1.2 million jobs.

Nothing to back up where these jobs will come from, we have no new inductries appearing, the banks are not recruiting, we don't make cars anymore, very few grants available to small companies (I own a small company so I know this bit to be true). It's all just pie in the sky stuff so the tories can keep there primary voters happy. Most tories won't be affected, but traditional labour / Lib Dems will be.

Now as for people getting houses if they are moving for a job, well it sounds very nice but again no hard facts to back it up. The government owns no houses, because the tories sold them all. They can't afford to buy any because we have too much debt racked up by successive governments (yes not just labour)

Also, would it not be better to attract industry to setup were people live. Surely that would cost less????

My point is that a knee jerk reaction based on party lines helps nobody. Was he actually proposing mass economic migration? I didn't read it that way. e.g A redundant paper factory worker might find his skills better used in another paper mill in another part of the country. Should he move or wait for another major factory to open up in his own area? No coercion has been mentioned, it's an attempt to provide choice surely?

[RyeSloan]

Good try SiMar but I pointed out some of the stats on the shortage of affordable housing and council housing earlier in the thread.

It's disappointing that someone sticking up for the Government's new policy can only find excuses around blaming Labour.

On the other hand it's amusing to see how state intervention is suddenly okay - "smaller government" I assume :greengrin. These privately-owned houses you mention - are the Government going to buy them up and renovate them? If I was a seller I'd know a captive market when I saw one. Or maybe the Government will introduce compulsory purchase orders :greengrin. Nevertheless,how are they going to pay for them?......

Fact is, this wasn't thought through in the slightest was it? It's not me selling it, nor you, it's the Government.

And what with them being the Government and that, it's surely not too much to ask that they're capable of explaining where people are supposed to live, if they're being encouraged to migrate.

You misrepresent me again. I have never stated that government per se is bad nor government intervention

Let me be clear to avoid any further confusion: I support potential government intervention but only where there is a clear justifiable cause and where other agencies and markets do not already exist or provide effective provision.

To me assisting job creation and facilitating job growth and internal economic migrants (hopefully away from the SE) would appear to be a reasonable place for the government to be looking at being involved. Note I do not support government creating public sector jobs directly (as Labour did) to help keep unemployment down, only assisting in facilitating it's population to find gainful employment.

Looking at the outline idea from IDS he is adovocating utilising the under used space in 500,000 council homes acorss the country (i.e 1 or 2 people living in a family sized home) and making it easier for people currently living in a council property to move to different council areas without affecting their right to a property.

Of course making this ideal work in practise may or may not be sensible but the idea of using under utilised hosuing to help ease the chronic demand for family homes and making it easier for council tenants to move across council boundaries in search of jobs without risking losing their right to a home seem reasonably sensible steps to me....

So actually it does sound quite clear that the outline desire has been thought through and the benefits would be clear to all...of course every action has a reaction so the impact on the efforts to upscale the utilisation of these family homes and on waiting lists for council properties in areas where 'outside' workers may be trying to move to need to be considered very carefully but in itself is the idea of using existing stock better and assisitng people to migrate towrards work such a bad idea that you should immediately scoff at it?

[Phil D. Rolls]

I wonder if the Liberals in the government agree with all these Tory policies. :hmmm:

[marinello59]

I wonder if the Liberals in the government agree with all these Tory policies. :hmmm:

Up until the point at which individual MP's realise that they are in real danger of losing their seats at the next election.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Up until the point at which individual MP's realise that they are in real danger of losing their seats at the next election.

Given that they have said date in their hands, do you think they'll push for an election before or after the devastation that the cuts cause?

[Betty Boop]

Nick Clegg has launched a new website, where we have the chance to put forward which unnecessary laws we would like repealed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/jul/01/nick-clegg-freedom-drugs

[Woody1985]

The site is down due to too many users. It certainly looks popular!

[Hainan Hibs]

More "new politics" pish from Nick Clegg.

[bighairyfaeleith]

My point is that a knee jerk reaction based on party lines helps nobody. Was he actually proposing mass economic migration? I didn't read it that way. e.g A redundant paper factory worker might find his skills better used in another paper mill in another part of the country. Should he move or wait for another major factory to open up in his own area? No coercion has been mentioned, it's an attempt to provide choice surely?

yeah thats a fair point

[Beefster]

My point is that a knee jerk reaction based on party lines helps nobody. Was he actually proposing mass economic migration? I didn't read it that way. e.g A redundant paper factory worker might find his skills better used in another paper mill in another part of the country. Should he move or wait for another major factory to open up in his own area? No coercion has been mentioned, it's an attempt to provide choice surely?

IDS pretty much confirmed your view on Question Time last night.

I defy anyone who saw him on QT to say it's a poor idea, that he's telling people to 'get on their bike' (like Tebbit) or that he doesn't care.

[Hainan Hibs]

Iain Duncan Smith put across a good idea on QT and it definitely isn't the "on your bike" mentality that some in the Labour party are calling it. I'm glad he also knows that people don't have to move to the South East as in many cases prosperous areas are only 30 or 40 minutes away.

I think there are a lot of people who would be willing to move if there was a job and housing available and I see no wrong in helping them succeed in moving. Iain Duncan Smith also seems to care a great deal about the subject.

[Mibbes Aye]

You misrepresent me again. I have never stated that government per se is bad nor government intervention

Let me be clear to avoid any further confusion: I support potential government intervention but only where there is a clear justifiable cause and where other agencies and markets do not already exist or provide effective provision.

To me assisting job creation and facilitating job growth and internal economic migrants (hopefully away from the SE) would appear to be a reasonable place for the government to be looking at being involved. Note I do not support government creating public sector jobs directly (as Labour did) to help keep unemployment down, only assisting in facilitating it's population to find gainful employment.

Looking at the outline idea from IDS he is adovocating utilising the under used space in 500,000 council homes acorss the country (i.e 1 or 2 people living in a family sized home) and making it easier for people currently living in a council property to move to different council areas without affecting their right to a property.

Of course making this ideal work in practise may or may not be sensible but the idea of using under utilised hosuing to help ease the chronic demand for family homes and making it easier for council tenants to move across council boundaries in search of jobs without risking losing their right to a home seem reasonably sensible steps to me....

So actually it does sound quite clear that the outline desire has been thought through and the benefits would be clear to all...of course every action has a reaction so the impact on the efforts to upscale the utilisation of these family homes and on waiting lists for council properties in areas where 'outside' workers may be trying to move to need to be considered very carefully but in itself is the idea of using existing stock better and assisitng people to migrate towrards work such a bad idea that you should immediately scoff at it?

So these "under-utilised" houses - I'm guessing the people in them are older people in the main, some of whom may be reitired, others who will still be in work?

Where is it they are meant to go? It sounds like you're suggesting they should be compelled to leave. Are they going to be transplanted over to the deprived estates that the would-be economic migrants are moving from?

It's not really thought through is it? Unless there is a plan for state-led social engineering as described above, which would be massively hypocritical given how much squealing there was about 'big government'.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Iain Duncan Smith put across a good idea on QT and it definitely isn't the "on your bike" mentality that some in the Labour party are calling it. I'm glad he also knows that people don't have to move to the South East as in many cases prosperous areas are only 30 or 40 minutes away.

I think there are a lot of people who would be willing to move if there was a job and housing available and I see no wrong in helping them succeed in moving. Iain Duncan Smith also seems to care a great deal about the subject.

Hate to say it, but IBS seems like one of the good guys.

[RyeSloan]

So these "under-utilised" houses - I'm guessing the people in them are older people in the main, some of whom may be reitired, others who will still be in work?

Where is it they are meant to go? It sounds like you're suggesting they should be compelled to leave. Are they going to be transplanted over to the deprived estates that the would-be economic migrants are moving from?

It's not really thought through is it? Unless there is a plan for state-led social engineering as described above, which would be massively hypocritical given how much squealing there was about 'big government'.

I'm not suggesting anything am I?? Please show me where I have suggested anybody should be compelled to leave...and go even further and show evidence that IDS has stated people will be compelled to leave their homes.

You are doing it again..making things up to try and make a point..."it's all about cuts" "compelling people to leave"

I've clarified my position on where I think governements should get involved, was that not clear enough for you?

Sadly you fail to answer my question: "is the idea of using existing stock better and assisitng people to migrate towards work such a bad idea that you should immediately scoff at it?"

Well do you?

[RyeSloan]

Hate to say it, but IBS seems like one of the good guys.

I can safely say that IBS is far from one of the good guys....bloody pain in the erse normally!! :wink: :greengrin

[Phil D. Rolls]

I can safely say that IBS is far from one of the good guys....bloody pain in the erse normally!! :wink: :greengrin

It's one of those things I don't really believe in - kind of like the coalition.:agree:

[Mibbes Aye]

I'm not suggesting anything am I?? Please show me where I have suggested anybody should be compelled to leave...and go even further and show evidence that IDS has stated people will be compelled to leave their homes.

You are doing it again..making things up to try and make a point..."it's all about cuts" "compelling people to leave"

I've clarified my position on where I think governements should get involved, was that not clear enough for you?

Sadly you fail to answer my question: "is the idea of using existing stock better and assisitng people to migrate towards work such a bad idea that you should immediately scoff at it?"

Well do you?

Really? Well I'll ask again so it is clear for me. Would you propose compelling tenants to leave 'under-utilised' properties (thus making them homeless), in order to try and implement this policy?

If not, how would you solve the housing issue?

As far as it goes, I have a genuine interest in housing and its role and function in developing communities, and contributing to social and economic growth. Existing stock does need to work better but there are many, many subtleties within that.

As for your second point, where's this work that people are migrating to? I must have missed these areas of high labour demand.

[Beefster]

Really? Well I'll ask again so it is clear for me. Would you propose compelling tenants to leave 'under-utilised' properties (thus making them homeless), in order to try and implement this policy?

If not, how would you solve the housing issue?

As far as it goes, I have a genuine interest in housing and its role and function in developing communities, and contributing to social and economic growth. Existing stock does need to work better but there are many, many subtleties within that.

As for your second point, where's this work that people are migrating to? I must have missed these areas of high labour demand.

It kills me that the government has the full force of the civil service, academia, experts etc behind them but you've missed a point or some info so it can't be true / won't work.

[Mibbes Aye]

It kills me that the government has the full force of the civil service, academia, experts etc behind them but you've missed a point or some info so it can't be true / won't work.

Simple stuff Beefster.

Where's the housing? And where are these areas of high demand for labour?

I've only got the (not insubstantial) full weight of myself behind me, but even I can tell that if people are going to be encouraged to move to find jobs they need a) jobs in the place they're moving to; and b) somewhere to live when they get there

So where's the houses and where's the jobs?

[Beefster]

Simple stuff Beefster.

Where's the housing? And where are these areas of high demand for labour?

I've only got the (not insubstantial) full weight of myself behind me, but even I can tell that if people are going to be encouraged to move to find jobs they need a) jobs in the place they're moving to; and b) somewhere to live when they get there

So where's the houses and where's the jobs?

Dunno. I don't work for the government or the civil service but IDS was fairly convincing about it all on Question Time. Even Alan Johnson admitted as much.

These guys will have the answers you're looking for: [email protected]

[Mibbes Aye]

Dunno. I don't work for the government or the civil service but IDS was fairly convincing about it all on Question Time. Even Alan Johnson admitted as much.

These guys will have the answers you're looking for: [email protected]

:greengrin

Ta. I'll let you know how I get on...

[easty]

So you believe the projected job losses but not the projected job gains? Are you serious?

The projected job losses are due to the money coming out of the public sector, it's pretty much a given that massive public sector job loss is on the way. The projected job gains are based on a hope that the private sector steps up and creates the jobs the country needs. There's no guarantee that'll happen.

I hope they have got the figures right about job gains, be it a guess/hope or not.

[Mibbes Aye]

Actually, I'm feeling mean :greengrin

New Tory policy, off the back of their budget which hits pensioners and the unemployed worse than the rich. They said it would be fair, didn't they? What's fair about people who are struggling being hit harder than multi-millionaires?

Tory minister says we'll pay folk to move house and get a job...


So where's the houses and where's the jobs?


Dunno.

I know you're not a Govt spokesman Beefster, but there's a deafening silence in all this........

[Phil D. Rolls]

Actually, I'm feeling mean :greengrin

New Tory policy, off the back of their budget which hits pensioners and the unemployed worse than the rich. They said it would be fair, didn't they? What's fair about people who are struggling being hit harder than multi-millionaires?

Tory minister says we'll pay folk to move house and get a job...




I know you're not a Govt spokesman Beefster, but there's a deafening silence in all this........

Apparently it's all to do with how hard you work, rather than how much money your parents passed on to you.

[RyeSloan]

Really? Well I'll ask again so it is clear for me. Would you propose compelling tenants to leave 'under-utilised' properties (thus making them homeless), in order to try and implement this policy?

If not, how would you solve the housing issue?

As far as it goes, I have a genuine interest in housing and its role and function in developing communities, and contributing to social and economic growth. Existing stock does need to work better but there are many, many subtleties within that.

As for your second point, where's this work that people are migrating to? I must have missed these areas of high labour demand.

So no evidence of compelling people to do anything then.....

I'm no housing expert (my qualities lie elsewhere :wink:) but I would hazard that contacting current occupants and offering them comparable quality but smaller units at a lower rental cost may encourage some to down size. There will be plenty of other ways to incentivise such a thing to happen.

And at least you finally agree that using exisiting stock better does need to happen, which I think is the overriding principle of the whole idea. I agree that there is many subtleties in getting such a thing to happen and really havn;t seen anyone saying otherwise but I don't think that should stop the effort to do so.

Finally there are jobs available and as the economy grows more will be created...sure there is quite a way to go to get back to previous employment rates but to glibly ask "where's this work that people are migrating to? I must have missed these areas of high labour demand" seems to suggest that there is no requirement for people to move to jobs or that there will ever be jobs for them. I disagree and know that there is always a requirement for a mobile workforce and especially in a number of jobs like constuction etc there can be massive demand for workforces to be very flexible in this regard.

Ach to be fair I don't think I've got too much more time or energy to spend debating this one proposal, I just thought it seemed, in principle, a good idea and one to try and assist people renting council property to move to new jobs without losing the right to their homes...as I've said the idea of helping your labour force to be mobile and not unfairly limiting council home renters their ability to do this seemed like a reasonable idea to me.

[Beefster]

Guardian Associate Editor calls Cameron "potentially the best all-round prime minister of the modern era". Well I never.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/08/david-cameron-best-prime-minister

[Mibbes Aye]

Guardian Associate Editor calls Cameron "potentially the best all-round prime minister of the modern era". Well I never.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/08/david-cameron-best-prime-minister

:jamboak:

Is Martin Kettle channelling Uriah Heep there?

That's the nearest I've ever seen to fellatio through a medium of prose :greengrin

On a more serious note, it's a real disappointment that Kettle can't drop the petty, personal, vindictive digs at Gordon Brown. He's gone but Kettle's not really man enough to let it go.

[hibsbollah]

Guardian Associate Editor calls Cameron "potentially the best all-round prime minister of the modern era". Well I never.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/08/david-cameron-best-prime-minister

I broadly agree with most of what Kettle says, although 'potentially the best all rounder' is a bit of hyperbole out of place with most of the article. Its far too early to judge, and he's not had any crises to deal with yet.

He's right about the Bloody Sunday speech, and he's right about grace and courtesy not being 'mere bourgeois triviality'. Macchiavelli would approve; it doesnt matter if you speak softly as long as you carry a big stick-Gordon Brown wouldnt have understood this im afraid.

I dont like his policies, or his party. But in terms of personal performance, Cameron is doing better than I expected.

[Phil D. Rolls]

A football analogy came to me yesterday about the cuts.

Is it wiser for a team that has financial problems to drastically cut its wage bill all at once, and run the risk of being relegated, heaping greater financial misery. Or should they maybe try to hang onto as much as they can, while gradually clawing back their deficit over two or three years?

To me recovery is more likely if you retain some of the tools needed to facilitate it.

[Houchy]

Why dont they move the parliament and civil service to birmingham to solve the unemployment in the east midlands and be in the centre of the country? Turn the parliament into a museum and charge tourists. Or would MPs not like to be moved from the bright lights?

:hmmm::tee hee::thumbsup:

[Leicester Fan]

A football analogy came to me yesterday about the cuts.

Is it wiser for a team that has financial problems to drastically cut its wage bill all at once, and run the risk of being relegated, heaping greater financial misery. Or should they maybe try to hang onto as much as they can, while gradually clawing back their deficit over two or three years?

To me recovery is more likely if you retain some of the tools needed to facilitate it.
What if you didn't cut the wage bill and still got relegated?

[bighairyfaeleith]

What if you didn't cut the wage bill and still got relegated?

Lets leave hearts out of a grown up conversation eh:greengrin

[bighairyfaeleith]

I wonder how the OBR scandal is affecting the partnership, especially with osbourne refusing to give up the right to pick the head of the supposedly independant OBR?

I have to say, we are only a couple of months in and how many cock ups have this coalition already made, it doesn't inspire me to think that this is some great new politics!!

Another prime example being the list of schools not getting upgraded in England, absolute farce!!

[Beefster]

A football analogy came to me yesterday about the cuts.

Is it wiser for a team that has financial problems to drastically cut its wage bill all at once, and run the risk of being relegated, heaping greater financial misery. Or should they maybe try to hang onto as much as they can, while gradually clawing back their deficit over two or three years?

To me recovery is more likely if you retain some of the tools needed to facilitate it.

The 'wage bill' is being cut over several years. If they cut £155bn in one year, you could wave bye bye to a majority of non-essential public services and the NHS definitely wouldn't be getting an exemption from cuts.


I wonder how the OBR scandal is affecting the partnership, especially with osbourne refusing to give up the right to pick the head of the supposedly independant OBR?

I have to say, we are only a couple of months in and how many cock ups have this coalition already made, it doesn't inspire me to think that this is some great new politics!!

Another prime example being the list of schools not getting upgraded in England, absolute farce!!

Osborne is likely to adopt Budd's recommendations for strengthening the OBR's independence. One of those recommendations will be that OBR appointments will be vetted by the Treasury Select Committee.

[Mibbes Aye]

So no evidence of compelling people to do anything then.....

I'm no housing expert (my qualities lie elsewhere :wink:) but I would hazard that contacting current occupants and offering them comparable quality but smaller units at a lower rental cost may encourage some to down size. There will be plenty of other ways to incentivise such a thing to happen.



Such as......?

And what's your evidence for the point before?

[IWasThere2016]

A football analogy came to me yesterday about the cuts.

Is it wiser for a team that has financial problems to drastically cut its wage bill all at once, and run the risk of being relegated, heaping greater financial misery. Or should they maybe try to hang onto as much as they can, while gradually clawing back their deficit over two or three years?

To me recovery is more likely if you retain some of the tools needed to facilitate it.

All depends if you run out of cash .. something the UK could do unless cuts are made.

We cannot keep borrowing - we must change. It will be painful but IMHO it must be done.

[Phil D. Rolls]

All depends if you run out of cash .. something the UK could do unless cuts are made.

We cannot keep borrowing - we must change. It will be painful but IMHO it must be done.

My point is though, that you could phase the cuts over a couple of years to avoid creating a bigger mess than you are in.

[RyeSloan]

Such as......?

And what's your evidence for the point before?

Evidence for what? I was merely suggesting that offering someone who was currently in a large under used property a smaller one of similar quality but with an associated reduction in rent requirement may encourage some to take up such an offer, do you have evidence to say they wouldn't?

Other ways to do this could be a council backed 'exchange scheme' which could match up prospective cross county tenants thus allowing easier movement across the country for those that wish to do so.

Ability of labour to move is a key efficiency of any economy, this is maybe one proposal that may assist in making that labour more mobile, however this individual proposal is not the be all and end all but the idea that the government understands this and is looking at ways of improving it is the important point here I would say, wouldn't you?

[GlesgaeHibby]

Interesting comment in todays Times. Apparently the coalition MPs are getting along great (in the main) with people that used to be their political rivals. It was suggested that things are going so well that it could see the parties merge. Obviously there are those on the far left and far right of each party (e.g David Davis) who would hate this idea, but most of the coalition members are relatively centre of the road.

I guess it's a similar idea to Blair and Campbells merger of Lib Dems and Labour to keep the Tories out for a generation.

[Mibbes Aye]

Evidence for what? I was merely suggesting that offering someone who was currently in a large under used property a smaller one of similar quality but with an associated reduction in rent requirement may encourage some to take up such an offer, do you have evidence to say they wouldn't?

Other ways to do this could be a council backed 'exchange scheme' which could match up prospective cross county tenants thus allowing easier movement across the country for those that wish to do so.

Ability of labour to move is a key efficiency of any economy, this is maybe one proposal that may assist in making that labour more mobile, however this individual proposal is not the be all and end all but the idea that the government understands this and is looking at ways of improving it is the important point here I would say, wouldn't you?

It's just you said that there were "plenty of other ways" to incentivise such a thing and I wondered what they were.

(Cross-Council exchange schemes already exist. Would suggest they facilitate, rather than incentivise, though)

[IWasThere2016]

My point is though, that you could phase the cuts over a couple of years to avoid creating a bigger mess than you are in.

And in the main the cuts will span > one financial year.

The area of the Public Sector I work in is expecting -15 to -20% over 3 or 4 years .. and my personal view: manageable - just; painful - yes; necessary - absolutely

[bighairyfaeleith]

Interesting comment in todays Times. Apparently the coalition MPs are getting along great (in the main) with people that used to be their political rivals. It was suggested that things are going so well that it could see the parties merge. Obviously there are those on the far left and far right of each party (e.g David Davis) who would hate this idea, but most of the coalition members are relatively centre of the road.

I guess it's a similar idea to Blair and Campbells merger of Lib Dems and Labour to keep the Tories out for a generation.

Given it's the times I would take it with a pinch of salt as they are owned by murdoch are they not?

I think the test will come when the lib dems start to lose elections and they find out what there voters think of the coalition. If they don't lose ground in the scottish then they may think it worthwhile.

[Beefster]

Given it's the times I would take it with a pinch of salt as they are owned by murdoch are they not?

I think the test will come when the lib dems start to lose elections and they find out what there voters think of the coalition. If they don't lose ground in the scottish then they may think it worthwhile.

Every national newspaper has a political opinion / bias. The Times aren't the only ones reporting that, in the main, those politicians in government are getting on surprisingly well.

[bawheid]

Every national newspaper has a political opinion / bias. The Times aren't the only ones reporting that, in the main, those politicians in government are getting on surprisingly well.

I'm neither a Tory nor a Lib Dem, but I don't think a "merger" woud be good for either.

I'm not surprised they're getting on well in office. Think there's only one Tory who has had a taste of government before, and the Lib Dems must be like kids in a sweet shop as they skip to Whitehall each day.

[Betty Boop]

Given it's the times I would take it with a pinch of salt as they are owned by murdoch are they not?

I think the test will come when the lib dems start to lose elections and they find out what there voters think of the coalition. If they don't lose ground in the scottish then they may think it worthwhile.

You are in trouble now ! :greengrin

[hibsbollah]

Interesting comment in todays Times. Apparently the coalition MPs are getting along great (in the main) with people that used to be their political rivals. It was suggested that things are going so well that it could see the parties merge. Obviously there are those on the far left and far right of each party (e.g David Davis) who would hate this idea, but most of the coalition members are relatively centre of the road.

I guess it's a similar idea to Blair and Campbells merger of Lib Dems and Labour to keep the Tories out for a generation.

I can't see that happening. I think its more likely that cracks will start to appear once some tough policy areas start to get addressed.

Trident is a subject that is coming up on the horizon with the military spending review; Lib Dems campaigned for scrapping it in their manifesto, some Liberal MPs will feel more than a little uncomfortable going back to their constituencies trying to explain why £20billion is being spent updating a cold war relic designed to obliterate Russian cities while the axe is getting wielded on police, schools and hospitals back home. (Royal United Services Institite-not exactly a normal source for criticising defence spending)
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/foreign-policy/cuts-undermine-trident-renewal-$21382119.htm

Similarly, just this morning Cameron was on the plane to Bangalore giving interviews on why he was tightening the rules on allowing migrant workers into the UK, and at the same time saying that his priority was getting India to open its markets to Britain. Indian ministers are quite rightly questioning how he can expect free access to Indian markets when he's making it impossible for Indian businesses to work in the UK? You're either for the free market or you're not.

On the same plane Cable was giving an interview quite clearly criticising his own Govts position on Indian migrant workers, and saying the economy depends on freedom of movement of Labour. There are two very different values just in this coalition Government, leaving aside the differences between the two wings of each party.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Every national newspaper has a political opinion / bias. The Times aren't the only ones reporting that, in the main, those politicians in government are getting on surprisingly well.

Did david tell you that:greengrin

[hibsbollah]

I can't see that happening. I think its more likely that cracks will start to appear once some tough policy areas start to get addressed.

Trident is a subject that is coming up on the horizon with the military spending review; Lib Dems campaigned for scrapping it in their manifesto, some Liberal MPs will feel more than a little uncomfortable going back to their constituencies trying to explain why £20billion is being spent updating a cold war relic designed to obliterate Russian cities while the axe is getting wielded on police, schools and hospitals back home. (Royal United Services Institite-not exactly a normal source for criticising defence spending)
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/foreign-policy/cuts-undermine-trident-renewal-$21382119.htm



...and Cameron has just announced the Trident replacement programme will happen, and it will come from the core defence budget. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10812825
So we're spending money we dont have on a massive unnecessary system, where a submarine armed to the teeth is patrolling the north atlantic every second of every day twiddling its thumbs, while the rest of the military budget (and all the jobs associated with it) gets decimated. Crazy.

[RyeSloan]

...and Cameron has just announced the Trident replacement programme will happen, and it will come from the core defence budget. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10812825
So we're spending money we dont have on a massive unnecessary system, where a submarine armed to the teeth is patrolling the north atlantic every second of every day twiddling its thumbs, while the rest of the military budget (and all the jobs associated with it) gets decimated. Crazy.

Too right....to somehow pretend that Trident would be more useful than say the proposed two new aircraft carriers in protecting Britain and it's interests abroad seems totally non- sensical to me.

[RyeSloan]

It's just you said that there were "plenty of other ways" to incentivise such a thing and I wondered what they were.

(Cross-Council exchange schemes already exist. Would suggest they facilitate, rather than incentivise, though)

Well whether something faciliates or incentivises is probably a moot point here...if the exchange scheme didn't exist then there would be a significant dis-incentive for someone to try and move cross county/region as they would have even bigger hurdles to get over would you not say.

While I have aready admitted that this is far from my areas of expertise but I have so far suggested two schemes that could ease the process both with probably low or minimal cost. Others that could clearly be put in place would involve financial incentives of varying degrees...maybe a use at last of all those regional development pounds that seem to dissapear without trace!

As I said though the key here is giving your labour force the maximum possible ability to migrate economically and that governments should be doing what they can to make that happen...it's even more important that they recognise some of their own systems that might be preventing that.

I accept that you don't really value this one proposal but I assume you actually understand the overall requirement it was at least trying to meet.