There’s something about this phrase that just makes me scream with laughterJanuary 8, 2014 Tim WorstallPolitics16 CommentsEarl Attlee, a Tory heridatary peer previousRitchie on flood defencesnextWe’re ruled by idiots aren’t we? 16 thoughts on “There’s something about this phrase that just makes me scream with laughter” Surreptitious Evil January 8, 2014 at 9:35 am More pendantry 🙂 I’m sure even the first Earl Attlee could spell “hereditary” properly. Okay, he possibly used it as a swear-word … Matthew L January 8, 2014 at 9:41 am Nigel Farage, the Ukip leader, said that lower economic growth is a price worth paying to radically cut immigration. … without comment. bloke in spain January 8, 2014 at 9:45 am Matt L Not quite what he said. The question was if the price of reducing immigration was lower economic growth would you still do it. Nige: It’s very unlikely it would, but yes. Ian B January 8, 2014 at 10:40 am I’m too lazy to go through this properly, but the agitprop from the immigrationists in the article seems to be focussed on aggregate GDP rather than GDP per capita, so even if they’re right, it’s trivial to the debate. Jim January 8, 2014 at 11:18 am He’s described as ‘Eary Attlee’ in the caption to his picture………….. Surreptitious Evil January 8, 2014 at 11:26 am Has the Torygraph outsourced its web-production to the Guardian? sam January 8, 2014 at 12:52 pm Mind you, it would be interesting to see how many of the things demanded in the 1945 Labour Party manifesto were in the 2010 Tory one. I mean not Clause 4, obviously. But I bet there were some. Monty January 8, 2014 at 2:05 pm And in the photo caption: “Eary Attlee, a Tory hereditary peer…” Steve January 8, 2014 at 3:40 pm So the story now is that mass immigration is tremendously good news for our UK plc. All those smiling Eastern European baristas and African cleaners are contributing more than they and their families consume in housing benefits, tax credits, education and health care, and so on. They’ll pay for our state pensions in our decrepitude, in fact. I rather doubt it. Bernie G. January 8, 2014 at 4:54 pm Yet another Recruiting Sergeant for UKIP. Offshore Observer January 9, 2014 at 12:06 am Actually the UK needs to keep up immigration particularly of people under 30 to keep the pyramid scheme of the State Pension from failing as the population ages. After all pyramid (ponzi) schemes rely on constantly getting in new entrants to fund the payments to early adopters. Also if population is falling and GDP is falling the standard of living on a GDP per capital basis remains constant (and can even grow). Roue le Jour January 9, 2014 at 4:02 am The implication of your comment, Mathew L, is that there is no contribution of immigrants so small that the UK would be better off without them. In fact, that immigrants are a good thing in themselves even if they bring no economic benefit. I doubt you would find many voters who would agree. bloke in spain January 9, 2014 at 9:34 am “I doubt you would find many voters who would agree.” But you’ll find 3 political parties & 3 or 4 national newspapers who’d a agree. Not saying you do much in the way of democracy in the UK, anyway, but… sam January 9, 2014 at 11:38 am All those smiling Eastern European baristas and African cleaners are contributing more than they and their families consume in housing benefits, tax credits, education and health care, and so on. They’ll pay for our state pensions in our decrepitude, in fact. I rather doubt it. ‘Fraid I don’t agree, Steve; I fear Offshore has it right. The replacement rate for fertility in the UK is 2.1 or thereabouts, and in 2011 for live births the total fertility rate was around 1.96, in other words, we are not replacing ourselves. We need people under 30 to work and pay taxes so that our generation doesn’t starve or freeze to death for lack of a state pension. Now, there is a possibility that the majority of children born are destined to be bright, hardworking people who will overwhelmingly be net contributors to society and the taxation system, in which case we’re fine. bloke in spain January 9, 2014 at 12:13 pm @Sam There’s a flaw in your argument. Subsequent generations have, historically, been more productive than preceding generations. There’s no reason you can’t have a reducing population with a rising per cap GDP, takes care of your pensions. sam January 9, 2014 at 4:04 pm @BIS fair point but – correct me if wrong – haven’t we had rising populations since ever? Leave a Reply Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.