Best Of

If we’re the 6th most indebted developed nation and have the 4th or 5th largest developed nation GDP, that presumably means our indebtedness is consistent with other developed countries.

The most indebted developed country in absolute terms is the USA, by far.

That has an element of thinking of before the fall of the Roman Empire or 2007.....

I am sure the Telegraph article is overblown, but the UK is now paying an insane amount of tax revenue on just servicing the debt (which Rachel from Accounts has set us on a course to be even further expanded) and we haven't had the sort of growth required to keep up with an aging and expanding population for 20+ years. And there is still absolutely no sign the UK has a solution to this problem. And hence why as soon as government increase taxes, we need to increase them again.

And yet we are not out of line with other developed countries.

Singapore has a debt to GDP ratio of 174 last year for example.

Debt is only really an issue if you cannot pay the interest on it, and we can.

I am as dry as dust on government debt and would very much like to see a balanced budget, but the idea that we are headed to the IMF is nonsense.

Keir Starmer to curb judges’ power in asylum cases

The main tribunal courts used by failed refugees to challenge Home Office decisions are to be phased out and replaced by a fast-track system under plans to be announced by ministers within weeks.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/asylum-seekers-migrants-appeal-system-overhaul-hotels-keir-starmer-chdvn8sxh

My god. An actual Good Decision.... apparently

Let's hope they do this. It's a crucial first step. The public have lost all confidence in this system

Lets wait and see. Is a good decision if magically this fast track system starts to have a much higher rate of acceptance of asylum claims? Some will say yes its clearing the backlog, some will be suspicious.

And of course, there will be seemingly infinite legal challenges at every stage.

Yes, I've just read the actual article and... hmmmmm

I reckon the mess will simply be shifted to more approvals and more use of houses rather than hotels, and blah blah blah. Labour are emotionally and constitutionally incapable of really addressing this crisis

The answer is to end the right of asylum as we know it. Simple. Only Reform will do that

Look at this: it all ends at 'upper tribunal hearing' or 'possibility to apply for a judicial review.'

Maybe it's me but it seems to be missing an "immediately fuck off" outcome:

There is only one way to circumvent the rule of law which is deny people the right to the rule of law. If you have the rule of law you have a process which is not fast. If tens of thousands of people are in that rule of law system on the same migration/asylum track, this is multiplied.

You can't in fact deny the rule of law to X without running the risk of denying it to person Y about whom a mistake is made (see USA in the last few months, passim, and see Windrush ditto.

The Daily Mail will not like it when in an excess of zeal some pensioner from Bridlington finds herself flown to Ascension or Kabul because she was eating sandwiches on a beach at the wrong moment. I exaggerate but stuff like this is occurring in the USA right now.

Anyone who has immigrant family or friends need to think very carefully about what the current furore might mean for them. For many of the protestors, it is not just about boat people, but any immigrants, however integrated they may be. Or indeed, anyone who is different.

Yep. The chat about deportations worries me far more than some change to our application of the Refugee Convention, which I think is going to have to happen.

These people are here now regardless of any reform we make for future asylum seekers. We have to apply these processes however expensive and painful that is going to be, lest we accidentally deport someone with the right to live here or end up killing someone who is genuinely in mortal danger should they return.

This makes the prevarication over a change to the law so frustrating. It should have happened before this summer. It should have happened in 2021.

No-one who's come here on a boat by paying people smugglers to infiltrate the UK has the "right to live here". They have the precise opposite.

You're living on a different planet.

But they do. Under the current laws and Conventions more than 80% of them will ultimately be found to have the right to asylum here. That is the law as it stands and it is entirely wrong to blame "liberal judges" for applying it. If Parliament doesn't like it it is down to them to change it, not blame judges or courts from doing their jobs. Our politicians are looking for scapegoats for their own moral cowardice. As usual.

Keir Starmer to curb judges’ power in asylum cases

The main tribunal courts used by failed refugees to challenge Home Office decisions are to be phased out and replaced by a fast-track system under plans to be announced by ministers within weeks.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/asylum-seekers-migrants-appeal-system-overhaul-hotels-keir-starmer-chdvn8sxh

My god. An actual Good Decision.... apparently

Let's hope they do this. It's a crucial first step. The public have lost all confidence in this system

Lets wait and see. Is a good decision if magically this fast track system starts to have a much higher rate of acceptance of asylum claims? Some will say yes its clearing the backlog, some will be suspicious.

And of course, there will be seemingly infinite legal challenges at every stage.

Yes, I've just read the actual article and... hmmmmm

I reckon the mess will simply be shifted to more approvals and more use of houses rather than hotels, and blah blah blah. Labour are emotionally and constitutionally incapable of really addressing this crisis

The answer is to end the right of asylum as we know it. Simple. Only Reform will do that

Look at this: it all ends at 'upper tribunal hearing' or 'possibility to apply for a judicial review.'

Maybe it's me but it seems to be missing an "immediately fuck off" outcome:

There is only one way to circumvent the rule of law which is deny people the right to the rule of law. If you have the rule of law you have a process which is not fast. If tens of thousands of people are in that rule of law system on the same migration/asylum track, this is multiplied.

You can't in fact deny the rule of law to X without running the risk of denying it to person Y about whom a mistake is made (see USA in the last few months, passim, and see Windrush ditto.

The Daily Mail will not like it when in an excess of zeal some pensioner from Bridlington finds herself flown to Ascension or Kabul because she was eating sandwiches on a beach at the wrong moment. I exaggerate but stuff like this is occurring in the USA right now.

Anyone who has immigrant family or friends need to think very carefully about what the current furore might mean for them. For many of the protestors, it is not just about boat people, but any immigrants, however integrated they may be. Or indeed, anyone who is different.

I was surprised to see anti-migrant protest are taking place in a town not far from where I grew up: Horley in Surrey. Surely the post boring place in human history. Even its name is just a dreary amalgamation of those of the two nearby towns Horsham and Crawley (not particularly exciting places in themselves).

The liberal consensus is breaking down. In real-time. I can even see aspects of it fraying amongst professional middle-class people, although more cautiously and with caveats.

I don't necessarily welcome this. I've considered myself pretty liberal in the past: a believer in openness, being reasonable, free debate, a supporter of moderate migration, sceptical of ID cards, hating detention without due cause, cherishing fair rights and responsibilities, open and free trade, and international rule of law.

However, this is all breaking down because of an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform - to provide answers to the problems of today; their only response seemingly to be to clamp down on dissent and double-down on hyperliberalism.

In their determination to not give an inch anywhere, they risk losing everything. And plenty of them will never see it coming until it's far far too late, and then blame anyone but themselves.

I think it is incompetence, rather than malice. (Or a refusal to compromise.)

Take the Conservative administrations under Johnson and Sunak and the issue of immigration.

They miscalculated how many people would come on the skilled worker program, and set the salary limits far too low. They miscalculated how many visa dependents would come when they opened up academic study visas. And they allowed themselves to be scared by representatives of the care homes community about worker shortages.

All of those mistakes were recognised, and changes were made. But changes were made three years after it became clear there was a problem.

The number of student visas is down sharply. The minimum salary is up dramatically.

The errors were (a) miscalculation, and (b) taking years to correct their errors.

Good businesses run on incrementalism. We have targets. If we see numbers are way out of line from what we expected, we don't commission a study, that reports back at some point in the future. We say "this number is out of whack: what is the simplest, quickest, easiest way of solving it, without causing issues down the line."

So, for the salary limit, when it was clear we were getting 3x the expected number of people, the salary limit should have ben increased by (say) 10% after three months. And if that didn't change the numbers enough, you can move it by a further 20% two months after that.

The difference between successful and unsuccessful businesses is being responsive to data.

And the Conservative government was woefully slow to respond. The models said [x] people would come, and - such is human nature - you say "oh, it's temporary, it will change". No! Be responsive, because responsiveness works in two ways.

Not getting any student visa applications, and you expected 25,000: well, maybe we can loosen up the requirements. But be constantly responsive to the data, while being very open about your targets.

The Pakistanis who apply for asylum are routinely refused are they not? And subsequently deported.

And the Bangladeshis IIRC.

Yes, nearly all of them.

Where are you getting your evidence from, because the Oxford Migration Observatory's figures from 2024 show a 51% initial grant rate for Pakistan. That's not including appeals or subsequent legal challenges. That is not being 'routinely refused' and it's certainly not 'nearly all of them' being deported. It is in fact an eye-watering grant rate from a relatively safe country.

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migration-to-the-uk-asylum/

There could be a lot of Christians, or gays

And? Pakistan is a huge country of 255m people. If you have upset those in your neighbourhood whether because of your religion, your sexual orientation or your actions, move. Its not a reason to come here. Its not our problem. And why the hell are 6% of Indian applicants getting asylum after appeals? The score from both of these countries should be zero. We need to start getting real about this or the whole system will be overthrown.

I was surprised to see anti-migrant protest are taking place in a town not far from where I grew up: Horley in Surrey. Surely the post boring place in human history. Even its name is just a dreary amalgamation of those of the two nearby towns Horsham and Crawley (not particularly exciting places in themselves).

The liberal consensus is breaking down. In real-time. I can even see aspects of it fraying amongst professional middle-class people, although more cautiously and with caveats.

I don't necessarily welcome this. I've considered myself pretty liberal in the past: a believer in openness, being reasonable, free debate, a supporter of moderate migration, sceptical of ID cards, hating detention without due cause, cherishing fair rights and responsibilities, open and free trade, and international rule of law.

However, this is all breaking down because of an absolute refusal of the governing elites to compromise, and an extraordinary level of resistance to any idea that there's even a problem - let alone that they should reform - to provide answers to the problems of today; their only response seemingly to be to clamp down on dissent and double-down on hyperliberalism.

In their determination to not give an inch anywhere, they risk losing everything. And plenty of them will never see it coming until it's far far too late, and then blame anyone but themselves.

The one thing we need to continue to resist is ID cards imo.

I've somewhat changed my mind. These are normal in Bulgaria, where my wife is from, and just like a driving licence. People aren't reguarly demanded to supply them.

And we don't really have any privacy anyway. We are all tracked and monitored with our data and phones wherever we go, and our ISPs and Chatbots know everything about us.

If an ID card could be disaggregated from all other databases and shown to make it impossible to work as an illegal migrant, and aid deportations, and deter new arrivals, I might take a different view now to what I did in 2006-2008.

why not just use driving licence, even if you don't drive you can get a provisional. Our lot will squander billions on a shit solution

Quite. The issue with ID cards is not the cards, it is the wide ranging surveillance powers that the British state is drooling like a hungry labrador at bringing in alongside the ID cards. They simply cannot be trusted with these powers. I wouldn't trust them with a paperclip I was fond of.

On topic this is a lay for me. I cannot see Reform having this sort of breakthrough, notwithstanding the pathetic performances of both Labour and the Tories. I still bear the scars of the SDP when we naively believed that we could break through the old duopoly and provide Thatcherite economics with Labour compassion. I think the SDP were far, far more user friendly than Reform will ever be, able to gain votes from both the left and the right. And yet we failed.

Reform show signs of winning over the socially conservative Labour element, the sort that voted for Brexit despite the attitudes of the Labour metropolitan elite. But I can't believe that they can win enough from that segment or the Tory right to give them the plurality they need. We shall see, maybe this is just wishful thinking. I believe the UK is better than this.

Yes I agree.
I suspect the prospect of a Reform government will focus voters on the anti reform option, not entirely unlike what we saw with corbyn.

Has a party ever gone from not being the official opposition to leading a government/winning most seats?

Records are there to be broken..😏

My friend with a large vinyl collection didn't appreciate it when I brought that attitude along.