Badger

I think that football finance is very interesting too - but point made by the OP is not "news."

I bet they back Liz truss too! 😁

I voted for Kenny as well!

Thanks for the reminder! 👍

That would be very unpopular on Twitter where all our fans seem to hero worship him.

If I were to summarise it myself, I would say that if the country wishes to ends its total reliance on imported labour it needs to greatly increase investment to increase productivity and skills. This will take at least a decade imo.

I take your broader point about measuring living standards using non-financial means (although economists would argue that they, unlike accountants, do take "welfare" into account - externalities). I agree that lower migration would lower demand for rented housing (mainly) but I suspect that it would not do so to a great extent and certainly not enough to compensate for the economic disruption caused by any sudden major limitation on immigration. However, this is where you need the economic modeller and quantitative economists with better research (and maths) than me 😃)

It does if you look at the full sentence: "If you wished to limit immigration in the future you would have to accept much lower living standards or properly prepare the economy with massive investment in technology and training, but this would take at least a decade." If you stopped immigration suddenly the economy would move quickly into recession + some sectors - e.g health and social care would be in a crisis which makes the current situation seem like paradise! Other industries would also be affected very badly - e.g hospitality + some parts of agriculture + there are many other areas where we use migration to circumnavigate skills shortages. In the longer term, a period of prolonged investment and training might make growth with minimal migration possible but Britain's record on productivity growth and investment has been pretty poor for a long while, so it would take a different approach to what has been practiced in recent years (back to Ed Balls' "neo-endogenous growth strategy." 😄).

I think that relying on free market principles to run an economy is similar to using 17th and 18th century medical techniques. There was by this time some attempt at empiricism and experimentation but it was only in its infancy. I don't think that the free market is wrong, but that it is insufficient. Hardly any modern economists believe that the untrammelled free market is an effective way to run the economy* but that does not mean that we reject all its basic principles. Ceteris paribus, I can't think a more likely outcome to raising demand without a corresponding increase to supply than a price rise. You are right that the supply side of the market is constrained, which is why it could not fully respond to increased demand, hence it (Help to Buy) inevitably leads to rising house prices. * It is the dream of fantasist idealogues without convincing supporting evidence, which is why Truss et al talk of the "left-wing economic establishment." These economists are not necessarily left wing, but they reject some of the more fantastic religious fervour that some free-marketeers have.

Why do you think that the Tories have allowed such a huge number of immigrants when it knows how unpopular it is? The simple fact is that it would be economically disastrous to stop it at present. I know populism is on the rise in western Europe and the United States (and beyond) but the irony is that there is a shortage of young people in the West - in a sane free market politicians would be fighting for immigrants! Of course, the free market right knew this but were happy to exploit the immigration issue anyway. If you wished to limit immigration in the future you would have to accept much lower living standards or properly prepare the economy with massive investment in technology and training, but this would take at least a decade. Given peoples' preference for current consumption rather than long-term investment, this is a hard sell for politicians.

It is, of course, an important principle of democracy that govt policy has broad support of the governed. However, the domestic population needs to be given the correct information to form a decision, which is rarely the case. Since leaving the EU, the govt does have total control who enters the country legally and in a preliminary estimate the ONS says the figure was 1.2 million, mainly from outside the EU. Given the populist nature of the govt, I think it is a reasonable assumption that they believe the vast majority of it is necessary. They may make some pre-election promises and "pretend policies" (remember "immigration in the tens of thousands" anyone?) but they won't be properly enacted because of the huge impact on supply of Labour shortages. In short, limiting immigration at this point would be economically disastrous, and even the Govt knows it. "The provisional estimate of total long-term immigration for year ending (YE) June 2023 was 1.2 million, while emigration was 508,000, meaning that net migration was 672,000; most people arriving to the UK in the YE June 2023 were non-EU nationals (968,000), followed by EU (129,000) and British (84,000)."23 Nov 2023 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/longterminternationalmigrationprovisional/yearendingjune2023#:~:text=1.-,Main points,) and British (84%2C000).

This is an important point. One of the consequences of Brexit is that we limit our building capacity in any future attempt at building to address the problem. We have limited our supply capacity which makes meeting demand even harder. "Help to Buy" and similar schemes only increase demand and therefore will drive prices still hard. It is astonishing that the party of the free market do not understand this.

This would have been a lot easier if we hadn't voted for Brexit! With govt.s like Spain currently ending their Golden visas it would mean that us oldies would have to emigrate permanently, which you may not worry about, but we would have to pay all our tax there as well.

Your point is reasonable, but the same point has been made at every stage of Idah's career. It is not a black and white issue but on balance, I suspect that it was probably the right one - if Sargent gets injured, I may regret saying this! I suspect that the recruitment team probably expected that Van H was going to be rather better than he has seemed on the brief evidence that I have seen.

I always like to refer to us as Norf*ckians 😄

Idah has needed a loan out for years and it has never been "the right time." He will come back a better player or attract a higher offer. We have not really missed him, but obviously might worry if Sargent is injured. However, tbh, when Sargent/ Barnes were out, he didn't look a top striker at this level: a loan for his development was the right decision in the circumstances.

Thanks Ricardo - great report as ever!

Exactly - we were pinned back but that doesn't mean that it was part of the game strategy - it simply meant that we kept losing the ball and couldn't get it back so were forced onto the defensive. As NCFC Analysis suggested - "The classic 3-0-6-2. Who needs a midfield anyway?" This suggests that rather than sitting back we tried to moved the ball forwards too quickly, lost possession and then had to retreat into all the space that left behind us. We did exactly as some of the Neanderthals recommend - got the ball forwards quickly - rather than "messed about at the back."

...and on the corner of the market.

Hopefully next week, "the Tractor Boys run out of gas..."

Or the Toffees in a sticky situation...😁

The Lions tamed...

Oooooh! This sounds like a good game. How about "the Bees stung?"

I can't recall ever having ever being criticised for chanting nor seen any others criticised for doing so. Are you sure that either you or your mates were not being obnoxious in any way?