Cameron failing to get a grip on UK immigration
I guess the corporates and the EU have got your balls in a vice cameron ? perhaps the border agency is as we suspect innefective ? or cameron is weak on changing the UK’s seemingly entrenched ideology of mass immigration ? whichever way 239,000 more people arrived in the UK than left in 2010 :(
Cameron you want it down at the 10,000’s then cap both EU and external to EU immigration to those levels, screw business’s needs and the EU you should be representing the native individual voters not business desires or the EU’s requirements. Business would have us all replaced by the cheapest labour globally if it could get away with it, business doesnt give a shit for nor will ever effectively protect something a subtle as national identity or people culture. And the EU cuntocracy main agenda is to dissolve national sovereignty, identity, culture wherever it finds it, unless of course it has hokey tourist exploitable value. The thing the EU fails to understand America is one country divided into states, Europe is a collection of countrys being forceably driven to the idea of being one country by stealth, the only way for the EU to truly exist is to wipe out national identity something the people unless propagandised to death will never tolerate. The EU should have remained the EEC a trading block and no more. The open border EU policy was insane I something I never voted for and will always despise.
we really need statistics to count the number of of foreign students leaving the UK after their courses finish as its over 100,000 a year being educated here. I suggest capping that at 100,000 for the moment and reducing the cap each year by those student that dont leave.
But if we want to talk about the real killer item for native british young it’s property value increases in houses. my grandfather bought a detached house with a large corner garden, lounge, dining room, 4-5 bedrooms for £600 outright with no mortgage in 1936 in Shirley Birmingham, after having saved up to buy it (was lost to the family after his death during my fathers teenage years), in real terms the relative cost including inflation would be £31,332 in today’s money, that house in actual price terms today would probably cost around £400,000 pounds today. The british population in 1936 was 47 million, today it’s not even double that in the UK so population increase doesn’t justify it quite ? US in 1936 had 127 million people and they now have well over 307 million today. I guess in relative terms we must have built very few houses since 1936 ? and more broken family’s, but a 12.5 times increase above and beyond inflation ? whichever we don’t need more people in this crowded island till they sort this housing issue out.
Meaning since 1936 it’s become 12.5 times more expensive for a person to buy a family home in britain ! not including the doubling of that initial price cost by the now essential bank mortgage required to be loaned today in order to buy it, in others words by the time you paid off that £400,000 today you would have paid back roughly £800,000. meaning that multiplier could be as much as 25 times more expensive ? since your not buying outright ? obviously with deposit a bit less ?
No wonder young people are dis-enfranchised by the I’m alright house owning property speculating set ! they’ve benefited from a 12.5 times property increase in relative terms.
When an asylum seeker in this capital is given a family home paid for by housing benefit they are equivalently stealing in value the equivalent of winning the lottery in london for a poor person who doesn’t use the benefits system ? such is the value of a family home in london, and this wanker governement keeps dictating that all these foreign fuckers must somehow be housed at whatever expense, because of bullshit human rights law ? nobody has the rights to live in a £700,000 pound house off benefits ? at the tax expense of the native non claiming poor … its insane, houses are worth too much in relative terms to be giving houses away in london like this > God I hate what this country has become. And the government wonder why there is a growing distance between the moneyed powered housing set in government, and the young self reliant poor of today, who seek the standard of their forebears, home and family.
drury lane theatre royal, relatives prices 1946 till 2011 relative inflation factor 31 x
drury lane theatre notice board prices 1946
In 1946 to sit and watch a production in the balcony was 3’3 or 3 shillings and thruppence ie £0.39p pre decimilasation and 16.25p in new pence post decimilisation, rounded to 16p using the inflation app on the iphone that price in todays money is £5.06 for a balcony seat.
To watch shrek an adaption of a bloody kids cartoon at the theatre today will cost you £31.50.
£31.50 divided £5.06 = 6.136 meaning, that theatre going has in relative terms become 6.13 times more expensive than it was in 1946 in relative terms ? for the cheapest seats ?
cost of a box
boxes in 1946 cost anywhere from £1 – £7 lets say on average the price was £4.00 meaning the current value is £128.00 , lord knows what the price of a box is today but considering they take 4 to 6 people and the grand circle is £81.50 im guessing in the £400-800 range ? bit interesting to get that info really ? anybody know the price of a box at the drury
The grand circle tickets were in 1946 15’6 or 186p in old pence meaning 77.5p in new pence that equates £24.35 in new money directly. A seat to see shrek in the grand circle today will cost you £81.50 divided by 24.35 = 3.3 times more expensive in relative terms for a seat in the grand circle.
so strangely the poor person is paying 6 times more to see a play at the theatre today than they were in 1946 ? whereas someone who can afford seats in the grand circle in 1946 there ticket price has only gone up 3.3 times.
my suspicion is the boxes have probably gone up even less than the grand circle in relative terms above and beyond inflation.
The other question is has the theatre actually got six time more expensive for the poor person ? in relative terms, im sure theatres would claim productions were more expensive to put on with effects and such but lets be honest im not sure the patrons care for the six fold increase whichever way, the point is the west end has become infected with this american style disney-esque effect driven monster cash cow las vegas style productions, driving proper theatre productions away from the poor. Its true of all markets if you put prices up to much you will some of the people who might have been prepared to go. the question how full or empty are the theatres and are they shooting themselves in the foot ? it seems to me in relative expenditure terms going to the theatre was not the kind of expensive fretted decision it is today, perhaps its mass international tourism that has turned these venues into money milking machines for the tourist, disenfranchising the local poor london familys ? for a family of four to go see Shrek at its cheapest will cost you £126 not including booking fees probably ?