Brexit immigration plans 'catastrophic' for industry

Torn Map Of Europe
istock_dny59_aw
Tom Herbert
Acting Editor
AccountingWEB
Share this content

Industry bodies have voiced concerns about the government’s leaked blueprint for post-Brexit immigration policy, stating that it would be ‘catastrophic’ for some industries.

A Home Office paper obtained by the Guardian outlined plans to force firms to recruit locally unless they could prove an “economic need” to employ EU citizens.

The draft paper dated 7 August, which has not been approved by ministers, contains measures designed to cut low-skilled EU immigration, and states that the government will “take a view on the economic and social needs of the country as regards EU migration”, rather than “leaving this decision entirely to those wishing to come here and employers”.

Some of the proposals outlined in the 82-page document include a suggestion that the UK could create a two-tiered visa system that would attempt to deter all but highly-skilled EU workers. Measures include:

  • A cap on the number of unskilled workers from the EU
  • A salary and skills threshold
  • Preventing EU migrants from job-seeking in the UK
  • Shorter residency permits of up to two years, ending the right to settle in Britain for most European migrants
  • Placing new restrictions on EU migrants’ rights to bring in family members

Defending the proposals today, defence secretary Michael Fallon outlined that while the paper did not represent the government’s final position, it did embody its overall strategy.

“There is obviously a balance to be struck,” Fallon told BBC Breakfast. “We don’t want to shut the door… we have always welcomed to this country those who can make a contribution to our economy, to our society, people with high skills.

“On the other hand, we want British companies to do more to train up British workers, to do more to improve skills of those who leave our colleges.

“We’re not closing the door on all future immigration, but it has to be managed properly and people do expect to see the numbers coming down.”

Severe restrictions

However, industry representatives, particularly those reliant on manual or seasonal labour, have reacted with alarm at the prospect of such severe restrictions coming into force in the immediate aftermath of the UK leaving the EU.

Such limitations are likely to hit the UK’s agricultural, hospitality and manufacturing sectors hardest. Analysis by think-tank the Resolution Foundation found that EU nationals account for 31% of workers in food manufacturing, 21% in hotels, 16% in agriculture and 15% in warehouses.

In a statement Ufi Ibrahim, chief executive of the British Hospitality Association said if the proposals were implemented they would be “catastrophic” for the UK hospitality industry.

Ian Wright, director-general of the Food and Drink Federation, also expressed concern at the draft paper’s content: “If this does represent the government’s thinking it shows a deep lack of understanding of the vital contribution that EU migrant workers make, at all skill levels, across the food chain.”

Research by KPMG for the British Hospitality Association indicates that hospitality businesses such as hotels or restaurants need at least 60,000 new EU service workers a year to fill vacancies, with EU nationals making up 75% of waiters, 25% of chefs and 37% of housekeepers.

A mixed bag

Manufacturers’ organisation the EEF stated that while its members could work with the proposals for highly-skilled workers, the suggestions for low-skilled migrants were of “grave concern”.

“The proposals represent a mixed bag,” said Tim Thomas, the EEF’s director of employment and skills. “On the highly skilled side, the system described is one we can work with, after some changes. But, we would have grave concerns that at lower skill levels accessing EU workers will be on a completely different basis.

“The question, currently unanswered, is whether workers other than the highly-skilled, will still want to come to the UK on the basis there’s no family reunion, no pathway to ever settling here, and where their stay is limited to two years,” said Thomas.

More focussed on the final outcome

However, some industry bodies sounded more conciliatory notes. Adam Marshall, director-general of the British Chambers of Commerce, stated that he was more focused on the final outcome.

“For me, the outcome must include a transition period that is near identical for businesses to now,” Mr Marshall said. “They need to be able to recruit with confidence in that transition period and they need to be able to ensure that any individual they take on during that time can stay with the business for the long term.”

The CBI’s managing director Neil Carberry also believes that businesses are waiting for clarity on the government’s final stance to managing immigration in the post-Brexit landscape.

“That means taking the initiative to guarantee those already here that they can stay, a transition period with limited changes so firms can plan ahead, and a final system for the EU that is simpler and more open than the complex work permit system run for non-EEA countries.”

Replies

Please login or register to join the discussion.

07th Sep 2017 09:55

The more I see of the way Brexit is going, the less happy I am about it. Not because we are leaving (I voted out and don't regret it), but because this and the previous government are (I dare say wilfully) turning it into a disaster.

They have failed in any research and planning, they have failed to enter into meaningful and conciliatory negotiations, and they have failed to keep the electorate informed.

And TM wants to lead the Tories into the next general election? I'd be surprised if they have even a hope in hell the way they are going on.

Thanks (5)
avatar
to SteLacca
07th Sep 2017 10:56

Although some of what you say is true you've missed the main question and that is how can you plan for something when you don't know what the outcome of the negotiations are going to be? £100b or £35b, a lot of difference. I'm sure TM has a plan for a "no deal". My view is to just come away with "no deal" and play it by ear. I have no doubt the EU business community will want to have a deal then. I notice BMW are already talking behind the scenes. I think TM will come out of this on top and win the next general election on her own merits. The reason for the uneasy tension at the moment is the "remainers" still think there is a chance of us staying in the EU and they will do anything to stop us leaving.

Thanks (2)
avatar
By chatman
to johnjenkins
07th Sep 2017 11:19

johnjenkins wrote:
My view is to just come away with "no deal" and play it by ear

Wow! Sounds like a wonderful plan.

Thanks (1)
avatar
to chatman
07th Sep 2017 11:28

Can you come up with a better one? No of course not because there isn't a "plan", simply because we are in unchartered waters. So let's stop these unfruitful "so-called" negotiations and get on with UK "open for business with all, including the EU". The EU is defunct and serves no purpose. There is, of course, a need for co-operation between our fellow countries, however that does not mean rules and regulations that are made by the unelected, forcing their will and non flexible workings on the rest of us.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By chatman
to johnjenkins
07th Sep 2017 11:40

johnjenkins wrote:

Can you come up with a better one?

Is that your defence of your plan? It reminds me of the argument for the existence of gods that goes "If you can't come up with an alternative explanation for the existence of the world, then mine, no matter how ridiculous, must be the correct one".

Thanks (1)
avatar
to chatman
07th Sep 2017 12:28

So we have a decent debate at long last. My view is that there is no better plan than "no deal" simply because the EU and "remainers" will not allow any sort of compromise. So what's your plan or do you need time to think of one?

Thanks (1)
avatar
By chatman
to johnjenkins
07th Sep 2017 17:19

johnjenkins wrote:
So what's your plan or do you need time to think of one?

I refer you to my post immediately above your one. The issue is actually more complicated than you appear to realise, and to assume that someone without huge expertise in this area might have a plan sounds a bit Dunning-Kruger.

Leaving the EU and planning to"play it by ear" is a bit like thinking "Saddam Hussein is bad, so we will depose him with no idea what we will do afterwards". That didn't turn out too well for Iraq, did it?

It reminds of that comment in Yes Minister "Something must be done. This is something, therefore it must be done".

Thanks (1)
avatar
to chatman
08th Sep 2017 09:56

Let's make it a bit simpler for you.
No immigration control = Access to single market.
Immigration control = no access to single market. So what's the plan?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By chatman
to johnjenkins
07th Sep 2017 11:42

johnjenkins wrote:
The EU is defunct and serves no purpose.

Except for all those things you have no idea how to replace, except with your cunning "play it by ear" plan.

Thanks (0)
avatar
to chatman
07th Sep 2017 12:31

Going back to the old EFTA would be a start. When you're in unchartered waters sometimes you have to "play it by ear" or as some politicians have said "Use a bit of imagination which you clearly don't have.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By chatman
to johnjenkins
07th Sep 2017 17:36

johnjenkins wrote:
Use a bit of imagination which you clearly don't have.

Ad hominem. Classy! Also a bit silly telling someone to use something you think they haven't got

Thanks (0)
avatar
to chatman
08th Sep 2017 10:01

Thank you for pointing that out. It does sound silly doesn't it. Perhaps I should have said. Imagination is something you don't appear to have therefor you wouldn't be able to come up with a workable plan.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By chatman
to johnjenkins
07th Sep 2017 11:47

johnjenkins wrote:
that does not mean rules and regulations that are made by the unelected, forcing their will and non flexible workings on the rest of us.

Aahh, you think the UK governmental system is democratic. That's so sweet.

Thanks (1)
avatar
to chatman
07th Sep 2017 12:46

It's far more democratic than the EU and at least I can vote. One of my lady clients thinks I'm sweet as well must be my after shave.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By chatman
to johnjenkins
07th Sep 2017 17:39

johnjenkins wrote:

It's far more democratic than the EU and at least I can vote.

You can actually vote for MEPs.

Yes, the UK is more democratic than the EU, but your complaint appeared to be about an absolute lack of democracy, not a comparative one. If lack of a perfect democracy is the problem, perhaps we should campaign to leave the UK.

Thanks (1)
avatar
to chatman
08th Sep 2017 10:07

A very interesting thought. Perhaps if the UK split us English might be better off.
The point I was making was that the EU have taken upon themselves a path of dictatorship which is clearly visible in the "negotiations".

Thanks (1)
avatar
By chatman
to johnjenkins
07th Sep 2017 11:37

johnjenkins wrote:
I have no doubt the EU business community will want to have a deal then

Everyone wants a deal. The thing that people are concerned about is that the EU is in a far stronger negotiating position than us. It's not like they're going to come begging us for a deal.

Thanks (1)
avatar
to chatman
07th Sep 2017 12:50

What a load of cobblers. VW, BMW, Mercedes, Bosch et al really don't want our business do they? What people think that the EU is in a far stronger position, oh yes the "remainers". So let's have a referendum on "no deal".

Thanks (1)
avatar
By chatman
to johnjenkins
07th Sep 2017 17:21

johnjenkins wrote:

What a load of cobblers. VW, BMW, Mercedes, Bosch et al really don't want our business do they? What people think that the EU is in a far stronger position, oh yes the "remainers". So let's have a referendum on "no deal".

Straw Man. No-one is saying they don't want our business, but have you compared the size of our economy to the size of the EU economy? Look it up; you'll be surprised.

Thanks (1)
avatar
to chatman
08th Sep 2017 10:11

What's size got to do with it (said the bishop to the actress)? So perhaps it's going to be better to deal with China, India and the US instead of the EU if we're looking at size.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By chatman
to johnjenkins
07th Sep 2017 17:33

johnjenkins wrote:
let's have a referendum on "no deal".

Now that I agree with.

Thanks (0)
avatar
to chatman
08th Sep 2017 10:13

Glad to see you've come round to my way of thinking.

Thanks (0)
to johnjenkins
09th Sep 2017 10:21

johnjenkins wrote:

?... that is how can you plan for something when you don't know what the outcome of the negotiations are going to be?


... and that is exactly what MTDfB compliant software touted by the software companies have done. More fool them.
Thanks (0)
avatar
to D V Fields
11th Sep 2017 09:03

Not quite right.
HMRC wants to move most of the small self-employed to PAYE. The software companies merely used that obsession to tout their wares.

Thanks (0)
avatar
to SteLacca
07th Sep 2017 11:06

If a day is a long time in politics the next election, potentially not until 2022, is a light year away. By then we will have fully 'Brexited', probably had a boom and bust cycle, a constitutional crisis with the monarchy, be fighting a threat from the leader of a rogue country/terrorist outfit, which doesn't yet exist and thinking Trump was actually quite a good president when compared to his successor!

Thanks (1)
avatar
to Vaughan Blake1
07th Sep 2017 11:31

That just sounds like this coming year.

Thanks (1)
to johnjenkins
07th Sep 2017 18:44

@Chatman, as I have found, arguing with Mr Jenkins is a rather pointless exercise it doesn't seep into his Daily Mail soaked brain.

But i do like how despite Brexiteers being very much in charge of Brexit, it's somehow the people who voted to Remain's fault, that the things pointed out at the time as why it might be a bad idea, are coming true.

ie like the £350 million on the bus was a bogus claim, the fact the EU would be playing hard ball, the fact you cant get free trade without abiding by the regulations of the free trade club, the fact most over prescriptive regulations are not from the EU but from Westminster, the fact the city will suffer and jobs go overseas, the fact you cant negotiate with other countries until we are out of the EU, the fact it takes years to negotiate other trade deals. The fact border controls would be really hard to put back in, the fact it makes Northern Ireland into a massive problem.

I could go on, but I am clearly wrong about all of this, and its my fault any of the above happens, and if we just left and told the EU to go away everything would be great. Of course it would.

If this was a care home you would just tell them it was nap time and tiptoe away.

Thanks (8)
avatar
to ireallyshouldknowthisbut
08th Sep 2017 10:29

Arguing about things is a very important part of our lives. Unfortunately, because of outside influences, the art is slowly disappearing.
I don't read newspapers.
If you say 100 bad things are going to happen then the "law of averages" means some will come true.
Since the referendum the only problems we face are the "remainers including the EU" doing everything possible to stop us leaving.
The £350m bus claim was not bogus. It was claimed that the £350m "COULD" be spent on the NHS. I just wonder how many "bogus" claims DC and GO made?
Unfortunately in some care homes that's exactly what happens.
The point I am making is that the EU will not allow a "compromise" deal so why spend time and money on it. Let's get out and negotiate as we go along. I'm sure some country out there wants our business and is prepared to cut red tape to have a "deal".
Border control is barely existent with thousands coming in on fake passports etc.
The bottom line is that our negotiating team will get so fed up with the antics of the EU's team that we will pull out anyway. TM has already said a "no deal" might be better for us. I got that from Sky news.

Thanks (1)
avatar
07th Sep 2017 10:35

I seem to recall other western countries (Canada?) having a similar edict that native inhabitants be 'recruited' prior to émigré labour
Do Australia and New Zealand have a points system for people wishing to emigrate?

Thanks (1)
avatar
07th Sep 2017 11:08

To me the immigration part of Brexit (and I voted out) was about letting the UK and not the EU decide on setting appropriate levels. If UK businesses actually need immigrant workers, then what is the problem? We have a very low level of unemployment and a need for younger workers.

The portion of the long term unemployed that could be employed, is a separate issue and given the low(ish) level should be reviewed on a claim by claim basis.

I recently read that UK productivity is currently on the low side (hence stagnant wage rates), hopefully leaving the EU will remove some red tape, however, the UK is adept at producing a plentiful crop of the home grown variety.

Thanks (2)
to Vaughan Blake1
07th Sep 2017 12:38

And this was my general thinking, too, despite the remainers constantly trying to paint us a racist, all most of us really wanted was sensible controls for who comes into this rather small island of ours.

Thanks (2)
avatar
to SteLacca
07th Sep 2017 12:56

And the stupid thing about it is, if the EU had said "cool we understand that some countries might need to be more flexible with immigration" then none of this crap would've happened and Nigel would still be in charge of UKIP.

Thanks (1)
avatar
07th Sep 2017 11:02

The whole idea of coming out of the EU is to set our own parameters that are linked to what we want not what the EU want.
We do not need a transitional period we just need to leave and the quicker the better.
We have a workforce called the unemployed. Consultations with the unions to get the balance right between pay (benefit) and working hours would be very simple to achieve. I'm sure a lot of the unemployed would be only too pleased to do some constructive work.

Thanks (1)
avatar
07th Sep 2017 12:05

Its all very well recruiting in cheap labour from overseas on minimum wage, but in most areas of the UK, a minimum wage is not enough to support anyone, hence this has to be topped up with tax credits or benefits. Its a bit short sighted to look at the business benefit, and not include the wider social affect that unskilled migration brings. Maybe we do need fruit pickers here, but their seasonal, minimum wage salary is not going to be enough to support them to live here permanently. A more structured approach like this makes more sense

Thanks (1)
avatar
07th Sep 2017 14:46

The debate about immigration is always hindered by confusion surrounding what a migrant is. A migrant is someone who comes to the UK to settle: tourists, temporary workers and students are not migrants. It is ridiculous to suggest that vegetables will be in short supply once we have left the EU. Leaving the EU will mean we can have fairer immigration controls that do not discriminate against UK and non EU persons. The Uk will probably have a more diverse and flexible workforce as a result.

Thanks (2)
avatar
07th Sep 2017 16:10

it all seems rather relative really.
On a recent foray to a hostelry we were chatting to our waitress who had arrived from Poland some 8 years ago and was happily working for a higher wage than in Poland and sending money home to her parents (she has also settled here with a new family of her own).
So, came from Poland to earn more money in UK ...fair enough.
But she then commented that in her native town there is a similar influx of immigrant workers in similar positions originating from Ukraine...who had come to Poland to earn more money to send home.

Thanks (0)
07th Sep 2017 19:24

I read today that the EU was demanding a completely separate deal for Northern Ireland before discussing most other areas. Apart from Scotland sulking, the obvious result from us has to be to tell them to get lost. Methinks the other side wants no deal too!!!

Thanks (1)
avatar
to Marion Hayes
08th Sep 2017 10:37

Marion, I really don't think that there is "a deal" to be had.
The stumbling block is the EU insistence that no control immigration has to be linked to the single market, effectively making the EU a country in its own right. Now I don't know if that is a good or bad thing. If you do it though, it has to done properly with the agreement of all EU citizens. So we are looking at Blair's federal Europe dream with him as el presidente.

Thanks (1)
to johnjenkins
09th Sep 2017 12:55

Hi John - I voted no the first time around and watched all the things the "joiners" said wouldn't happen come to play. I think I would be entitled to say I told you so. That debate was about economics mainly and the idea of a federal state didn't trickle out to us if it was around at the time.
I voted no this time too based on sovereignty - I don't believe anyone else should be able to tell us what we can or can't do!!! I believe we are too independent to be a good fit in Europe - that's why there are clashes in the UK - but I would rather be our own master. Starting from where we are now and then discarding or enforcing the bits we adopted that the other members just ignored
My understanding on voting was in or out - not in a little here and out a little there. I don't want a deal - we should just be verifying our commitments after leaving if there are any. Then see who offers the best terms - on our own is just what it means and we are very good at that.

Thanks (1)
By DJKL
10th Sep 2017 12:57

A few observations.

The EU are not desperate for a deal, in fact as far as I have observed they are accepting that any deals will be very limited, the net result in say financial services is they are already gearing up to take market share from London. Frankfurt is boom town, they are recruiting software developers from all over the world and already gearing up- whilst we contemplate our navels they are preparing. (My son is out there, working with a United Nations cast, in effect snooze and you lose)

Re immigration, long term reduced supply will increase wages, in some ways good, however any competitive advance from the weaker pound will likely, longer term, be offset by higher wages and a reduction in international competitiveness.

The idea that those who voted remain are still in there as fifth columnists trying to reverse matters is pure bogeyman politics, the idea was daft, it is still daft, however we are in the main now making the best (or not making the best) of a bad job.

From a personal perspective , given my age it will not really impact me directly, provided I can protect my assets and savings I will be fine (now more than 50% out of the FTSE with investments covering the rest of the globe now far more significant) and with an eye on future wage pushed inflation re UK asset allocation. But others are not going to be that lucky, I have a few clients who will long term struggle absorbing increased wages and possible labour shortages.

I can foresee a few macroeconomic discussions coming to the fore at close out meetings e.g. how resilient is your business, should thought now be given to staff retention and staff loyalty to be ahead of the curve when things do get difficult, e.g. enhancing pension, bonus schemes etc.

On the plus side, no need to worry about minimum wage compliance, the next twenty years will see actual wages outstripping the minimum wage and politicians playing catch up.

From an economic perspective, viewed from the factors of production, Land, Labour, Capital and know how, we were always constrained by Land, we have now it appears agreed to curtail Labour, some Capital flight is now inevitable and the likely impact on university finances ex foreign students could long term reduce know how.

On one level we are really successful, we have managed to impact all areas in one strike, efficiency of effort is self evident. What a mess.

Thanks (0)
avatar
to DJKL
11th Sep 2017 09:16

Great observations.
I have to ask the vital question. Had we decided to stay in the EU and immigration continued with a net influx of over 300k would our infrastructure have collapsed?
Interesting listening to TB yesterday. Shutting the door after the horse has bolted.
I'm not against a United Europe, even with one currency (I don't thing we are far off the pound, euro and dollar all being equal) but there has to be flexibility and tolerance which the EU, unfortunately have abandoned.

Thanks (1)
By DJKL
to johnjenkins
11th Sep 2017 15:03

Not sure re infrastructure, to a degree down to choices we made, we accepted taxes from GDP generated by those who came here, our decision where these extra taxes were spent or rather decisions of our politicians)

What we now need to face is, if immigration severely curtailed, a long term population reduction and the impact that will have on the shrinking proportion in work and the growing proportion retired and requiring something. Of course this is not a problem solely faced by the UK, most Western European have the same issue, and most, like us, lack the courage to confront the electorate with the issue. (Pension/welfare time bombs)

On having one currency I disagree, near parity or not is hardly the issue, it is holding monetary policy in our own hands that is key, at least for the moment. The issue with the EU (apart from all the red tape etc which we will get anyway, merely different masters) is one currency size cannot suit everyone due to significant differences in GDP per capita- we have over the years had UK policy out of step with rUK, fiscal medicine say required for an overheating SE when Wales/Scotland/NE needed different policies and the euro is just a bigger manifestation of the same issue; one size does not yet fit all .

I did not have an issue with common standards/ conformity of trade within the EU, and saw no real reason to leave as any advantages from leaving are imho likely mirages, I actually see the single market/similar structures as an inevitable consequence of global capitalism and I can see no real alternative to the long term breaking down of international borders unless there is a major shift in how the world now ticks; we are where we are.

We have now made our bed re this and must live with it however uncomfortable the long term consequences may become, methinks we have in the long term been sold a pup.

Thanks (0)
avatar
to DJKL
11th Sep 2017 16:21

One size will never fit all. This is where the EU have gone wrong.
I do feel that "market forces" will prevail, so in the long term there will be more stability with the renewed flexibility our leaving the EU will bring.
The bitcoin could well become the trade currency between countries.
Those that have used capitalism to finance communism are beginning to find problems due to the inevitable breaking down of international borders.
I think the days of the ""single market" type scenario " are numbered.
Donald Trump has started the trend and I feel the days of the politicians who do not listen to what the "people" want are numbered also. You only have to look at the popularity of JC to see what's coming. I think Angela Merkel will be listening to the likes of VW, BMW, Mercedes et al (although I'm sure she will get in again).

Thanks (0)
By DJKL
to johnjenkins
12th Sep 2017 00:42

I disagree, I see DT and JC as a mere temporary lurch in Western thought towards populism rather than the start of a long term world trend in that direction. They are merely the current fad of the protest voices in the West that things can be better.

Global capitalism has left many adrift in its wake, such imbalances need some form of redress (rich/poor gap growth) but dismantling the whole edifice as a cure is frankly not something the rest of the world will embrace, the fact is there are far more aspiring global capitalists in China, India etc who want their turn at the top of the food chain, the stagnant West no longer has the ability or power to arrest the fate of history because some of our own are hurting; they will merely end up as casualties on the wrong side of history. The conceit of the West is to still believe it can shape the world, the reality is it cannot, its time is passing.

Great powers through history have always eventually waned, the Trump motto, "Make America Great Again" is a nostalgia induced death throe, Corbyn mere reaction to the idea, "for the many not the few", both, in historical terms, will likely be footnotes to history, akin to the American Populist Party (People's Party) who enjoyed their fifteen minutes in the 1890s.

Douglas Adams, one of my favourite writers, encapsulates this forlorn hope for something better, with the following,

"And then, one Thursday, nearly two thousand years after one man had been nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change, a girl sitting on her own in a small café in Rickmansworth suddenly realized what it was that had been going wrong all this time, and she finally knew how the world could be made a good and happy place. This time it was right, it would work, and no one would have to get nailed to anything.”

Of course we then discover this does not come to pass, the Earth is destroyed. In effect, there are no Utopias.

Thanks (0)
avatar
to DJKL
12th Sep 2017 09:06

The demise of capitalism and communism is inevitable because neither work in a world that is "aware". The high tech trend has made more people aware of what is happening. What's that phrase? "ignorance is bliss". We are now going through a transitional period (which is always bumpy). Through this period a new type of leader should emerge. Donald Trump, Emmanuel Macron and of course our own Boris are three that have emerged so far. There are others waiting in the wings. Just as nature has ways of re-balancing so does history. I think we have passed the time that humans will destroy themselves, again awareness will eventually force the current leaders to make right decisions rather than political ones (yes I know we are a bit away from that yet).

Thanks (0)
By DJKL
12th Sep 2017 10:52

Well, if you are right I will not be very happy.

These forerunner politicians of a new dawn, who if you are correct will blaze their way into school textbooks 100 years from now, are pretty unedifying specimens.

This is one of the reasons I see this as mere grumbling of the masses rather than real change, the calibre of the individuals is just not good enough.

Thanks (0)
avatar
to DJKL
12th Sep 2017 11:29

The proof of the pudding is in the eating as they say.
Growth is sometimes slow unless you are forced in a corner.
One thing is sure and that is the next 5 - 10 years will be remarkable.

Thanks (0)
By DJKL
to johnjenkins
12th Sep 2017 16:15

On that last point we can certainly agree, from a political drama perspective we have "never had it so good", reality is fully eclipsing "The Thick of It"

Thanks (0)
avatar
to DJKL
12th Sep 2017 16:25

We've come a long way since "that was the veep that was".

Thanks (0)