I perhaps should have explained better. Pay is determined by the market. Currently in the UK, that market is depressed by easy immigration from the EU. In the US, the nursing labour market doesn't have that same influence. There is a 'shortage' of nurses in both countries. The UK approach to fixing it is with immigration. The US with increasing pay. Can't blame a UK Nurse for voting to Brexit.Originally Posted by Saracen999
Speaker of the House - Bercow - has apparently just shut down a 3rd "meaningful vote" since there have been no substantial changes since the last vote....
Talk about drama...
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
That would be true in a free market, but the NHS isn't a free market. If a certain type of nursing is salary band H then it doesn't matter if youre the best or worst nurse doing that job, you get paid in the same band.
In more impoetant news John Bercow has just announced the government can't have another go at passing the same deal. I imagine he's not on any Christmas card lists at number 10.
Smudger (18-03-2019)
Via the Guardian:
"What Bercow said about how he will not allow another vote on exact same Brexit deal
Here is the key quote from John Bercow’s opening statement.
If the government wishes to bring forward a new proposition that is neither the same nor substantially the same as that disposed of by the House on March 12, this would be entirely in order.
What the government cannot legitimately do is resubmit to the house the same proposition - or substantially the same proposition - as that of last week, which was rejected by 149 votes.
This ruling should not be regarded as my last word on the subject. It is simply meant to indicate the test which the government must meet in order for me to rule that a third meaningful vote can legitimately be held in this parliamentary session."
And a Tweet on relevant legislation:
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/st...76037236412418
Also:
"How 1948 provides a precedent for how government could prorogue parliament to get its way
Peter Walker
Responding to Jacob Rees-Mogg about whether the government could get round the bar on repeated votes on the same issue in a single session of parliament by simply starting a new session of parliament, John Bercow confirmed this could happen.
There is a part-precedence for this in the passage of the 1949 Parliament Act, which reduced the powers of the House of Lords in delaying certain legislation. The law was blocked by the Lords twice, over two parliamentary sessions.
Since the existing law which the new act was replacing – the 1911 Parliament Act – required three parliamentary sessions to pass before the Commons could overturn the Lords, the Attlee government prorogued parliament – ending the session - and began a new special session lasting from 14 to 26 September 1948, complete with its own King’s Speech.
Could something similar happen again? Labour MP Stephen Doughty asked Bercow if this could happen. The Speaker said this would be “an unusual step”, but he had no idea whether the government had such plans."
Live updates still coming in on it:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-politics-live
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
Yes!!!
I want this country to collapse.
I want British/English culture to be utterly eradicated and replaced by drunkard Eastern European gypsy Sharia-Law Muslims.
I want independence for Scotland, United Ireland, Wales, Cornwall and whoever else demands it.
I want this place to become the steaming, stinking cesspool glorious melting pot of multiculturalism that everyone thinks it already is.
I want everyone to get everything they're asking for, everything to be given away to the foreigners, and for the politicians responsible to just escape retire to their overseas tax-haven holiday homes.
Any other ridiculous questions?
_______________________________________________________________________
I tried to address this in the previous comment. The Union in the UK provides an upward pressure on wages.
UK immigration always was in the UK's hands. We had the right to expel any Eu citizen after 3 months, if they couldn't show income, Home Office decided not to keep track of Eu migrants coming in, thus couldn't enforce this.
@teepee - UK nurses are paid on a banding rate, so EU nurses wouldn't be able to come over 'on the cheap', they'd have to be paid the same as a UK-based nurse, based on their qualifications and abilities.
Yes. But those bands are determined partly by the need for nurses. With greater pressure to fill positions based on shortage, the band sees a greater rise year over year. It is determined by the market. The presence of legal immigrants available to fill those positions at current rates reduces the pressure to raise them.
Unfortunately the market has little to do with it, the governments finances do. Hence many years of the rates being frozen post 2008 despite an increase in the number of vacancies. As the NHS is the vast majority of the market the private hospitals can keep their costs low too as they only need to offer around 5% more than the NHS bands.
I say unfortunately as my wife is a teacher and teaching is in largely the same boat. A rising number retiring or otherwise leaving the profession, a falling number taking it up and all while there are more children to teach. As a result the demand for teachers has risen yet the wages have not.
The other problem is people normalising racism trying to make it no longer racism. Having a problem with excessive immigration is not racist. Even being against all immigration isn't racist. Oilsheikh's nonsense ramblings clearly are.
"In a perfect world... spammers would get caught, go to jail, and share a cell with many men who have enlarged their penises, taken Viagra and are looking for a new relationship."
EU citizens have the right to come here without qualification. Non-EU citizens don't.
Whether subsequent conditions, as you say, are available or not is not the point. The point is that that freedom of movement is mandated by EU treaty and NOT by the UK government. Now, that may be argued as a good thing ir a bad thing, but my point is that wanting equal rights of access to EU and non-EU citizens isn't racist. Nor is wanting the UK government to have control over the overall numbers, per year. Which, under freedom of movement, we do not.
So, if 300,000 or 3,000,000 come here from the EU, in a given year, saying no isn't in our control .... unless they are non-EU.
And before anyone says it, yes, there are "emergency brake" measures ... we can ask for. Cameron did, when he was trying to get concessions before he came back with his fig leaf of a deal, and the EU said no. It is not in our control if we have to ask permission, especially if told no.
However you cut it, EU citizens have access rights non-EU citizens do not, and it is not racist to treat everybody the same. In fact, it's the opposite, to not discriminate on factors like race or nationality.
In terms of traditional market economics, the NHS would meet the criteria for a monopoly, which is to say, it is large enough and dominant enough for it's actions or inactions to override the normal operation of the laws of supply and demand.
Of course, as a state entity, it isn't defined by market economics in that way.
Re: Brexit New Deal/Legal Changes - Risk Still Remains
I mentioned issues with uncontrolled low-skilled immigration from East Europe years ago on this very forum. I was ridiculed then and am being still ridiculed!
Unlike non-EU people, these EU citizens don't think they are living in a foreign country. They think the UK is their country and carry on as they did back home. They look at Asians and Blacks and think wtf are these non-whites doing here in our land.
Clearly you lot think I am making things up. So, I am going to start posting photographic proofs of how the standard of our society has been f'ed up. Watch this space.
I cannot give any validity to the actual statements he's making. Couldn't tell you if they were accurate or not. But what Race do you allege he's discriminating against? I see claims about 'Eastern Europeans', which may well be 'cultural discrimination', but that's not the same as racism.
But then again, did it really sound like OilSheikh was really after some "good debate"? I haven't been active on Hexus for a while and actually forgot why I had him on my ignore list. Seeing a quote of his post in post 85 (then looking at a few more posts in this thread to make sure that I am not missing any context) reminds me of why. Fine, I do not think it is "racist", but possibly xenophobic, and certainly lacking substance for debate.
Sure there are negative to go with the positive to immigration, and Saracen has many times made some fine reasoned arguments against freedom of movement. OilSheikh's make it seem like Eastern Europeans are the cause of all the trouble in the UK, and if you can't see what he sees (because what he is obviously right) you must be blind (insulting to our intelligence, which going by your words, hardly a good way to debate), and don't even bother providing evidence to the contrary because the only truth is his own
I'd be more interested debating with a wall.
Even IF he is not racist nor xenophobic there is still something in common (especially the later) in that he is basically hating on, and vilifying a pretty large group of people (Eastern European), associating a large population with all kind of evil, talking about them as if they are beneath him is something that rubs me in the same way as someone who -is- racist or xenophobic for much the same reason.
You're ridiculed because you're just shouting outrageous hyperbole, not reasoned facts. Your random anecdotes about the people on the local trains isn't not very convincing for most people.
I could easily say that the majority of immigrants are Asian and rail about that as that's what the local mix is. Personally I don't really see the issue with immigration as it stands though. You can blame all manner of ills on immigration all you like, but I've seen plenty of criminality from all ethnic groups, so I don't think banning certain types is really going to help, someone else will just step into the void.
Disturbedguy (19-03-2019)
There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote