Eastern European migrants are generally harder workers. Get over it.

Eastern European migrants are generally harder workers. Get over it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jun/05/speaker-john-bercow-eastern-europeans-nigel-farage

The truth is people with nothing moving away from their families to a strange new environment where they have no safety net are going to have to put the hours in to survive.

They will have gone through a considerable effort to relocate here and, like any new venture, will be willing to put in over time to get it all started.

They also have the option of working hard while living in impoverished conditions for a few years and buying land back home. Driving up property prices for those who never left.

So. Yes migrants are hard workers and increase the national GDP.

But national GDP is just a big number that on it's own has no bearing on the quality of life for the average person. 

Quality of life for the average person is our ultimate goal is it not?

What is the effect on the indigenous population who  really can not command a living wage as a result of competition with the desperate people willing to work overly long hours for below a living wage?

What for the quality of life for the migrant while they are here finding their feet, of for their parents and grandparents back home loosing their natural 'Big Society' which family is.

Increasing the Holidays travel exodus that earth does not have another 100 years of energy to support.

I once forgot to feed three Chinese dwarf hamsters who had lived happily sleeping together up till then.

They never stopped fighting after that and slept alone.

This is where we are headed in our hunt for GDP. When QoL is all that maters. 

We are never going to get QoL while lobbyists from energy, banking and war companies have the influence in politics that they do.

28th of August visit www.GoodEgg.org.uk and be part of the solution. Put it in your calendar now.

No one should request that you to vote wearing a blindfold. If they do, give them a piece of your mind, not your vote.

Capitaism drives innovation.. and then nullifies the benefit.

I think everyone agrees that capitalism drives innovation.

How can it not?

The promise of making more money drives some people to risk investment or commit more hours and do so immediately, encouraged by the knowledge that the first through the post will gain the advantage of brand or patent.

So what do we want from our innovation?

To answer that perhaps we should ask what do we want from life?

Presumably the wisest answer will come from those who look back from their death beds and list the things they would have changed.

Do they say 'Made more money', or do they say 'Spent quality time with my loves ones'?

So surely our innovations should allow us to spend more time with our loves ones.

In terms of health I think this does hold true. We are able to cure more diseases and put other ailments on hold. Were we not living such unhealthy lifestyles we would live longer.

But outside health our innovations generally do allow us to work quicker or automate chores. So that's perfect.

No. Both the average mother and the father need to work long hours to support a home?

Why?

Capitalism negates the benefits of innovation.

Supply and demand. Those necessities have become open to private investment and anyone, anywhere with a with a surplus of wealth may and will invest in owning and profiting from necessities. There is no safer investment.

This places the control of supply pricing completely at the hands of the necessity owners.

As more unnecessary money flows into the necessities they go up in price as CEO's seek returns for shareholders that justify their salaries. 

The limit will be that of the endurance of the average person.

There is no 'low cost living' that will allow those who enjoy the simple things in life to do their fair share in ever depreciating hours thanks to innovation.

There are rules in place to protect the public from cartels and monopolies but as we have seen recently with Libor, energy pricing and the EU having to step in where London would not, the wrong people seem have to managed to occupy the positions of scrutiny.

With the welfare state as it was there was a 'Get out of jail free' card. Doing nothing, being a sponge. The rising costs of that went into the pockets of the owners of capitalised necessities, while a hopeless generation was created, used to doing almost nothing, now required to do more than one willing to enjoy the simple things should be required to sacrifice.

The all important 'fair share, low skill' middle ground that can bring fulfillment pride and happiness to the most people has gone.

With globalisation these levels slip further for the exportable skill classes. Two new low standards are bought to the mix.

• The lowest level someone in a suppressed regime who has managed to immigrate will tolerate.
• The salary of someone in a low value country but adjusted for transportation and import duties.

Local businesses must pay their staff these locally low salaries to compete, even to sell locally against importers. Everyone working harder, for less, using the latest innovations just to stay afloat. 

With real wages slipping the necessity owners have reached the price limit and now seek to multiply their wealth in developing countries where the cost of living will again rise faster then wages. The intended benefit of innovation going to waste.

And in the rush, we consume faster. We can ill afford to consume faster.

So it is clear to me that, regardless of our innovation, the living standards of the majority must continue to deteriorate if we maintain a brand of capitalism where the necessities are also capitalised and where those who write the rules are tied to those same profiteers.

Note.

What saddens me is that intelligent people who understand and accept this continue to vote for individuals who make no legally binding commitment to change it.

If politicians can say one thing and do another you have no information.

If spin is intentionally giving you the wrong impression then you have been lied to.

If you are not able to make an informed decision you do not have a democracy.

Please enforce your right to democracy next time you vote.

Give the next generation a foundation they can build on.

Visit www.goodegg.ork.uk 28th of August.

Nick Boles MP receives 'Ministerial Code Toilet Paper Award.

Nick Boles MP is trying to change the law so that farm buildings such as barns, sheds etc can be turned into residential without planning permission. I guess then other barns will get built, and then converted and more built, and then converted etc.

Since the land aspect of a home is typically half the cost, this potential for profit in owning farm land will swell an already fanatical industry of developers and family trusts buying farms with no intention of ever farming, but to profit from a planning application more than the construction margin ever could.

Nick Boles MP family have a 300 acre sheep farm in Devon

http://www.nickbolesmp.com/about-nick/

Getting planning permission is not 'free market' competition. It is about knowing what might get through and buying that, then getting the right people on board to get permission. Well it looks like Boles did it the other way and became the person on board. I wonder how many of his political supporters are also barn owners looking to make an easy £100k on each.

An MP is supposed to stay clear of issues in which they have a vested interest.

  

That is way Nick Boles is receiving today's #MinisterialCodeToiletPaper award.

Like many MPs Nick Boles should be in court for breach or trust.

But will probably end up printing millions for his loved ones and provide nothing towards the infrastructure the new homeowners will use.


Want to make sure you never vote for the likes of Nick again? Help the Good eggs stand out from the bad ones. 28th August visit www.goodegg.org.uk. Put it in your diary now.

Why it is important that the department of education removes climate change from the geography syllabus for under 14s

The department of education can not afford for all parents and all children to be educated on climate change.

If all children were to be educated that there is a high possibility that our level of development, even now, is causing escalating damage to the planets ecosystem, that the damage even to date had caused many people especially in hot countries suffering worse starvation and droughts, then our now educated children may become life long environmentalists. Their voting may be effected for life. 

The education of an 8 year old is very different from that of a 14 year old.

At the age of 14 children are expected to select their nine GCSEs with the core subjects being Maths English and the sciences, the rest are optional. This means that many students man never be actively educated on climate change before being presented the the lure of commerce.

At 14 geography in preparation for GCSEs the children are expected to retain a mountain of information scientific rather than moralistic level of education and two the select few who choose geography the loss of support to our core industries will be reduced and the focus can revert to less more experimental topics as soil types.

Climate change is a very emotive issue and if there is one thing 9 year old are good at is being emotive. Not only that but 9 year olds have not yet turned 13. The golden age where the young adult casts aside their parents and goes it alone on homework.

The 8 year old is still engaging with their parents willingly and their parent still think they are a bit cute, unable to fend for themselves.

Their homework is our homework. Climate change homework will not only serve as a cruel reminder of the suffering not only on children but on the parents who are struggling to support their own helpless nine year old. And in that setting our 9 year old will ask us what we are going to do about it?

By educating the under 14's you no loner educate one third of the voters of the future. You educate everyone with a child, through the eyes of a child.

Though the eyes of a child we are presented with simple right and wrong even if we are only 80% sure. Many will finally accept that that our consumption is unsustainable and that even the great market economy must be made to work within the environments constraints and humanity to do the best it can with that. That the rules of land ownership and it's exploitation need to change.

It is therefore absolutely essential for the industrial gamesters that fund the main party leaders that climate change education is minimized.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/18/climate-change-schools-backlash

Sustainable GDP. The missing metric

We hear a lot about GDP and growth.

GDP is very useful because it provides us with a total figure from which to take percentages and ascertain the overall health of the country.

GDP / Defect
GDP / National debt
Proportional of GDP from banking / farming etc.
GDP / Working hours (Productivity)

The GDP figure on its own  tells us nothing the level of public debt, private debt, how much it is dependent on consumption of finite resources, quality of life or rich poor divide. Yet increasing GDP is how most senior politicians measure growth and success?

Lets pretend that we found 2 billion barrels of crude just off the coast of Brighton.

A new industry is born in the area, much to the displeasure of many, but none can fail to see the prosperity it brings.

Extracting 1.1 million barrels a day for 5 years. Each year £200b of GDP is off the back of this finite resource. We have an immediate 9% increase in our GDP without taking on any financial debt to achieve it. The government, with what might equate to an over all £100b tax take on each of these years does reduce the deficit a bit but mostly spends the money on nice things and quango's.

The party in power are labeled a success.

Year 6. GDP down by 9%. A boom region full of young families who over paid for their homes on debt dies over night. The government spends two yeas getting used to not having its oil allowance and gets into more debt than it was before the boom.

How can we stop this happening?

We need another metric. Whenever we talk about GDP it must not include unsustainable consumption.

When we use a resource that does not regenerate the GDP that can be attributed to it should be calculated.

The same should be done with the use of reserve resources.

The same should be true of the use of resources beyond their regeneration rate, for example wood and fish stocks in our present day.

Using GDP as the master figure encourages the dog like instinct of eat quick or miss out and allows no insight to the sustainable economy which must one day be able to support our governance and provide a good quality of life on its own.

By encouraging a the use of a global economic model around sustainable GDP where debt and industry levels are related to that, we can begin to learn how to live within those constraints gradually so that in 10-20 years time we are able to do so.

This figure will allow us to allocate a monetary debt figure to consumption. And from this we can allow the market economy to fix the addiction.

An example would be year incremental yearly % of consumption on renewable and recycling technology or infrastructure. Year 1 5%. Year 2.10%

This seems pretty obvious but it ignores part of the big picture.We are not one nation. Either we all do it or the selfish leader has an advantage.

But I believe the advantage is over rated. With more investment in renewable, better working practices, better telecoms we have less people travelling long distances to do similar jobs, we can thrive without consuming resources. We must! 

The market economy is a good way to encourage innovation. But a market economy needs rules that keep it working for the good of the public now and in the future. Not for the families of those who have authority over resources.

A macro model that grows sustainable GDP can do that.

Equal Marriage #EqualMarriage

When I first heard about equal marriage I was against. Why should a religious group be forced to go against their faith and marry someone if they are simply flowing the doctrine of their faith.

I also though it was a big fuss about nothing. Flamboyant homosexuals making a stir so they can have a something they call a proper wedding. If the religions don't want them then why try to be a part of them. Make your own better religion. One that is tolerant and celebrates apologising to your fellow man when you have wronged them rather than a invisible force then carry on as before.

Then I had doubts. We can not allow discrimination in our society. Discrimination is very hard to resolve because the segregation is what causes the discrimination. To my shame there is no-one on my phone who is black and would expect me to make a courtesy call. There is also no-one on the list who is gay.

We do have segregation. Every wedge forms a level of discomfort and we take the easy option when choosing our relationships. We can never allow history and fear of change protect discrimination.

But then would we be discriminating against people with a faith. They were not actively committing an injustice?

Then I read the bill. And please someone correct me if I am wrong. No practitioner is required to carry out the marriage if they do not wish to.

The defences were gone.

Marriage is not longer a religious institution for most of the UK.

It has become a legal term and influences the laws surrounding assets and benefits.

It has a social value. It is still the go-to term for 'Off the market'. A symbol of the ultimate monogamy commitment.

It also has the benefit for carrying a gender reference for each party. As I found out recently and a young man told me about his partner. I asked where she was from, he said "Him" I said "Ohh sorry" he said "It's ok".

It was not really ok. We then proceeded to talk too much to compensate for the awkwardness that would have never happened had he just said husband. A potentially genuine dialogue destroyed because I was worried that he though that . . you get the idea?

Will I ever be attracted to a man? No way. The sway and curve of a woman's hips hmm. Everyone who is straight or gay knows that you are just born that way and it makes no sense to me that we are not all bisexual? I guess we are animals after all.

Am I homophobic. Yes, a bit. I have not knowingly conversed with any regularly since my college days but I remember it was nothing then, the idea that they might fancy me is odd. I guess it is the feeling women have around proactive men, but without the justification.

I'm more OverExcitableTeenageAphobic and MPSpeculatorAphobic.

But regarding homosexuals at least and feeling initially different and more calculating when relating to them. I know that it is both morally wrong and literally unfounded.

I do not wrong others so that I can gain or simply feel more comfortable.

It is wrong.

I will not deny them any rights that I might have. And that includes the institution of marriage.

Live in the UK? Want to have a family? Go for it but only if you are old, have family money or are irresponsible. #RentTrap

About 30 years ago a trend started. 

Banks started lending larger income multiples. As they did amount people were able to pay for their properties went up. So property prices went up.

With property prices going up the banks had the confidence to lend higher multiples so property went up more.

You do not have to be clever to buy an asset that is going up in value. You just have to have the money to get started.

The next step it the buy to let market. Re-mortgage a house that has gone up in value and then use that money as deposit on another house.

The above required no education. Just opportunity and inclination. And has produced many millionaires. The risk they took was that the housing market could crash and they would loose everything. If your 40-50 and had some money back when it was a sure thing you were a fool for not doing it.

'Every action has an equal and opposite reaction' by securing a continuous income owning someone else's  home, you secure a continuous drain on theirs.

How do you set a rent price?
Anyone in sales knows you set the price according to what the market will pay. With not enough properties available for sale at income multiples which have been at least partially reigned in people have no choice but to pay, in many cases their entire full time take home salary on the rent of their family home. That is at these artificially low interest rates, so to purchase right now introduces a massive risk and needs a large deposit. Do we wait for the crash or pay extortionate rents?

Why didn't property prices come down?


Take into account that many people bought their actual home at these inflated rates and were perhaps paying interest only, and add that the banks have less than 10% of the capital they lend out and most is lent against property,  If the market were to drop to where it should, it would make sense for the new home-owners to become bankrupt and start fresh. Then the banks would become insolvent. A house price reduction of 20% would trigger an historic economic event in the UK. One we would ALL feel, unlike the 2008 version.


How do young couples without family money get  out of the #RentTrap?


Couples on average - 50k incomes trying not to be a burden.
If they are able to get the deposit and multiples together when they both work 40 hour weeks, praying that interest rates do not go up.

While getting a roof over their head is phase 1 of the path of life they now do not have the spare £1000 / month for childcare and can not afford to take maternity past 3 months let let alone move into a property with a another box room. At 35 they bite the bullet and try for a baby anyway unless there is an inheritance

Family money
Varying levels of help but a 30% deposit without interest fixes a lot of problems.


Couples on low - average incomes
The sums will never add up. If they do not want to share a room in a shared house then they will have a better quality of life with children on the scene. Healthier to have them young anyway. Have a family on benefits and then have the right to buy your council house at 25% of value when the kids grow up. #RentTrap is the responsible option, but why be responsible when people are voting for those who profit from your societies injustice?

Can't we cut out the middle man. Self build?

My in-laws were once invited to purchase plots for a new community. They then commissioned the builders and build a home according to certain specifications.

Our new build development market is all tied up. 

In the UK land with planning permission is costs 10x or more what is is costs without, and even that is more than land is worth as going concern, the value is there just in case it gets planning permission. Just keep applying.

So either you speculatively purchase a small holding you can not live on, so you have to have wealth already, or you are still going to be paying over the odds.

Even then in the UK we like to have large development companies building 100s of houses. The reason is it simplifies the infrastructure part of the equation  Who pays for the new schools and bridges.

The developers mission is to make as much money for themselves as possible. And I do not blame them for that. They are a business after all. They also have the wealth to make the development happen. Taking the council's to appeal or having the time to maintain a good relations, or fill the council with your brethren.

So property prices are artificially inflated because of landlords, rents are high because shelter is a necessity. Developers and land speculators can realise obscene profits on land value changes because of the market price to build cost ratio to they agressivly purchase any bit of land they can, run it down and apply for planning permission while lobbying government. These costs and their excessive profit saddles another generation with additional mortgage debt which, over 30 years of interest or rent, will be more like triple that figure not being disposable income, retirement float or first step for their grand kids. What is the solution?

Make sure surplus developer profits go into affordable housing.

I was at a council meeting last night where the council told me that they negotiated the terms of the planning permission with a large developer to meet their infrastructure needs and wants.

They did not look at the profitability of the scheme at all. 

They do these days include 'affordable housing'. This can can take takes several routes for the developer but in this case was for sale to the council's representative at 60% of the sale value which is widely accepted to represent cost.

For a development of this size the on green field the amount of affordable housing would be 40%. Because the developer is being called a strategic partner this is 35%. And for reasons unknown they were allowed to negotiate a special deal to make this 27% with another 8% being built off site. When where? Surely that would have it's own AH quota too.

I do not have all the numbers to make sure that the developers are likely to make a healthy 10-20% profit at best and use the surplus to fund affordable housing. But it would appear the council do not either. According to my sums if there were 50% affordable housing the development would still be a go.

I think developers are having a tougher time of it, but they did grow fat having an easy time of it. The council who represent the community give the planning permission and support the hyper indebted families. Either strike a competitive deal or say no. And if we have to build houses because of government policy then compulsory purchase the farms. Grant yourself planning permission and sell the plots to developers at market value. Much simpler. The sales money going to infrastructure and affordable homes.

Affordable housing is not fair. Free ride for the lazy what about me, I paid for my house.

No it is not fair as it is. But it can be.

We want professional people in their mid 20's without family money to have a couple of children if they want to. Lets make affordable housing assist young families cash flow at this point. Not a gift. Well a little one.

Lets put the affordable homes value in an asset pool. It's purpose to encourage responsible families facing the impossible to stay responsible.

The council can sell some of their affordable homes at full price to purchase not only other properties to help distribute people who need affordable homes, they can use the money purchase stakes in properties that  young couples expecting a baby currently own. The young couples will benefit from a very low interest rate on that stake that the community still have an asset that may, hopefully not for 15 years, appreciate.

This should be means tested and the offer extended to a family home up to 3 bedrooms the family wishes to purchase  then, once the second child is in primary school and the young family has been supported in it's desire to have two children but should now be able to supplement it's income by at least £400 / month the facility can be passed on to others.

Now if we had a nationalised bank this would be a lot easier. We guarantee against our own part owned properties.


At the same time private home owners sell the family home with the memories etc and downscale into a property that meets their needs often to free up cash, we have to expect the same of those we are supporting, but not the cash.

Ideally everyone would have some cash from downscaling. With a bigger affordable homes scheme using means tested part ownership there would be lots more people taking pride in an appreciating asset.

If I were a wealthy land owner I would not be saying this.

I'd like to think I would. I say this because I actually speak to people on middle incomes about their finances. I did have some family money. I do not think I could be where I am today without it 

This would be fine were there no hardship caused by property wealth. It has been allowed to go too far. Average earners living in the UK, born since 1989 trying to stay near their family and friends have no hope.

Opportunists who had a spare £50k in 1998 need do nothing to earn more than any nurse or teacher.

Do not get me wrong. If I had a spare £1m I would be buying farm land on the outskirts of an expanding town or flats in one getting a new rail link with a view to renting them out indefinitely  Packaged in an offshore trust so that my children will not incur inheritance tax. It is a easy way to stay rich. In fact it is the only guaranteed way.

But since each one of my £1m will cause 6 families to struggle I would also campaign for and vote for these revenues to be taxed aggressively and tenants to have the '#RightToBuyPrivate'

Right to Buy Private would be where by after two years the tenant has the right to purchase the property at the midway value between the value when they moved in and the value now. Any fun and games the landlords use to avoid / manipulate it should be quashed.

This should be the equation we use for the Right to Buy council houses too. It's simply not a good way to run a society with a vested interest to be irresponsible.

The cost of shelter in the UK has become a private blackmail by deed. Caused not by cruel individuals but by market forces. It is the role of government to resolve this with legislation.

With the above in place my £1m might not be best placed in speculative land or homes near a new school or railway. They would stand a comparable chance of growing if invested in a business servicing people who confidence of a nest egg, disposable incomes, and the time to enjoy it offline. They might grow if I provided a service, making a modest profit while getting 4 year tenants on the housing ladder, rather than being my serfs for life.

Will this make the general uk work force work less hard. Possibly. With the threat of homelessness attached to a shorter working week needed to pay for necessities. But energy is going to have to cost more, so we need the slack.

The Camerons of this world see only busy ants who would be unhappy or mischievous if they we do not have a rod up their back. Are they mistaken?

Improved quality of life should be the end goal.

'Quality Of Life' is a balance. It includes work, play, family and a good dose of bugger all.

The GDP speculative banking land renting economy comes at the expense of Quality of Life, the most important metric there is.


Most MP's are Landlords. They earn more than most without doing ANY work. Be a SMART-voter.org and ignore their lies.

Why MPs are paid so little and why something must change

An MP was never supposed to be a full time role. They are supposed to be a trusted working member of a local community who have offered themselves up for the privilege of helping those around them not someone who lives there as part of a political strategy.

Like with the hours families work in the economy. The role of an MP has raced to the bottom.

If a family is willing to work 100 hours / week for a modest lifestyle and it is allowed to then that is what low earners will have to do to compete.

If a political candidate is able to work 40 MP hours / week and has financial backing then that is what all political candidates must do to compete.

This excludes them from being what they are supposed to be, in touch members of the local community.

It also requires that they have a conflict of interest. A duty of care to the people who financed them or the other profit making organisations they are a part of.

So it is time to accept that the role of an MP has been allowed to change and as we learn from our mistakes we must change the game rules.

There seems to be only 3 options.

1. Pay rise so that an MP is a well paid full time, time tracked executive job. Lets match it to a head teacher. £140k for example. But with allowances no different than a school head teacher. No second home, modest accommodation provided. They can pay their own travel in and out of London and visit less frequently seeking council from their constituents.The further from London you are the more £140k means so it ballences out.

I'd like to see more MPs voting from home with their constituents giving them last minute encouragement not a whip. Public speaking opportunities should be part of their ideology and freely given, not something for sale commanding figures that could justify loyalty in parliament. Non-executive positions and directorships are not only areas of conflict but provide unfair competitive advantage as they have access to MP sentiment and were serving us when they got it.

2. Regulations are put in place so that money factors little in political success. 
Some ideas. Limit political campaigning to state funded circulations and events that give each candidate equal exposure. No door stepping or personal fliers.

3. Random. Yes a jury of 260 people deliberating. Can we pass laws without parties? Much easier to get a majority of 260 people to eventually agree democratically on one colour than three people who are disagreeing on principle.

Will there be some people obviously not suited to the roll? Yes. But they will do less harm than a clever crony.

My personal preference is in order is 321. But it can not continue like this.

If you are fed up of signing petitions against the latest evils pushed through by corporate interests in politics put in your calendar 28th August to visit www.GoodEgg.org.uk.