Best Of

Imagine what it would have been like if Ed had won in 2015 with his coalition of chaos.

Thank heaven we dodged that bullet!

Ed Miliband was rightly rejected in 2015. His government would have been a car-crash.

And it wouldn't have made the political problem of EU membership or free movement "go away" either; it would have got worse.

We’d be in a happier place if we still had all those keen young European workers rather than the Boriswave that the Tories gifted us.

All the restaurants and pubs in my locality are now filled with young Britons working there.

I'd say that was a positive thing.

I'd say our economy being 6% or so larger than it is today would have been a more positive one.

And that's why you lost.

People didn't want a nominally larger economy for no change in GDP per head with all the social and cultural change that came with it.

You liked the social and cultural change, because values, yet still think raw GDP is an effective stick to beat those who disagree with you.

You've learned nothing.

Much of the public didn’t like the social and cultural change that the Brexiteers delivered subsequently with the large increase in migration, which suggests that the winners learnt nothing too.

I also think this argument that people on the left actively desire higher immigration for 'cultural' reasons is generally incorrect. Speaking for myself at least and other vaguely left wing people of my acquaintance I think our attitudes are subtly different to that. The point is that we can see that immigration is a natural byproduct of an economy with a lopsided age distribution and a world where it is cheaper and easier for people to relocate, and we don't actively dislike immigration because we tend to believe that integration happens in an organic way and we are not attracted to ethnic versions of nationhood. Perhaps this is an unimportant distinction for those who oppose immigration, but I think it might be useful for them to understand our views better. To put it more succinctly, it's not that we like immigration, more that we don't mind it.

This is a good and interesting post.
A few points - and I speak only for myself here, not for everyone wary of immigration:

I'm not attracted to an ethnic version of nationhood - I know Asian Brits who are more culturally British than I am - but I am attracted to a cultural one: one where we share a common view of being British, where we speak the same language, hold the same small-l liberal, secular views, consent to be governed in the same way. In some way of course this is a fantasy - there will always be disagreement, and the freedom to disagree is healthy. But my view is that this common view has got substantially weaker over my lifetime.

I think it's interesting that you say integration happens in an organic way. My view is that it would be desirable if it did, but that it does not always appear to do so, and nor can it be forced. If it did, I think I would be largely on board with your point of view. But I don't think we can know which of us is right - at least not for another couple of generations. You're clearly an intelligent man though (and I hope I could say the same about myself) and I like it on occasions like this when we identify the differing assumptions which lead different rational people to contrasting points of view.

On economics: I take your point about the demographic drivers for it, but I worry that importing more people is at best a sticking plaster; at worst counter-productive (depending on the economic value of those people we import and their dependents). If our economic model can only work with an ever growing population, we need a new economic model.

Most successful economies benefit greatly from immigration, and cultural mixing tends to be good for innovation.

The real discussion ought (IMO) to be over the practical limits in terms of numbers.

600k in a single year clearly produced serious strains, and was well beyond what the majority of the electorate would tolerate.
But there's no real consensus around what an 'acceptable' level might be - even if you were to exclude the views of the purely xenophobic.

Most successful economies benefit greatly from skilled migration.

We ought to be able to attract the best and brightest to boost our skills, complementing our skills from education.

If you look around the world the most successful economies, per capita, are those that encourage skilled migration. For the same reason as we have universal education, because having a skilled population boosts us all.

For some reason the UK has become hooked on unproductive, low skilled, migration. To fill unproductive, minimum wage jobs or cash in hand jobs. That just devalues our education, it doesn't supplement and boost it.

Imagine what it would have been like if Ed had won in 2015 with his coalition of chaos.

Thank heaven we dodged that bullet!

Ed Miliband was rightly rejected in 2015. His government would have been a car-crash.

And it wouldn't have made the political problem of EU membership or free movement "go away" either; it would have got worse.

We’d be in a happier place if we still had all those keen young European workers rather than the Boriswave that the Tories gifted us.

All the restaurants and pubs in my locality are now filled with young Britons working there.

I'd say that was a positive thing.

I'd say our economy being 6% or so larger than it is today would have been a more positive one.

And that's why you lost.

People didn't want a nominally larger economy for no change in GDP per head with all the social and cultural change that came with it.

You liked the social and cultural change, because values, yet still think raw GDP is an effective stick to beat those who disagree with you.

You've learned nothing.

Much of the public didn’t like the social and cultural change that the Brexiteers delivered subsequently with the large increase in migration, which suggests that the winners learnt nothing too.

I also think this argument that people on the left actively desire higher immigration for 'cultural' reasons is generally incorrect. Speaking for myself at least and other vaguely left wing people of my acquaintance I think our attitudes are subtly different to that. The point is that we can see that immigration is a natural byproduct of an economy with a lopsided age distribution and a world where it is cheaper and easier for people to relocate, and we don't actively dislike immigration because we tend to believe that integration happens in an organic way and we are not attracted to ethnic versions of nationhood. Perhaps this is an unimportant distinction for those who oppose immigration, but I think it might be useful for them to understand our views better. To put it more succinctly, it's not that we like immigration, more that we don't mind it.

This is a good and interesting post.
A few points - and I speak only for myself here, not for everyone wary of immigration:

I'm not attracted to an ethnic version of nationhood - I know Asian Brits who are more culturally British than I am - but I am attracted to a cultural one: one where we share a common view of being British, where we speak the same language, hold the same small-l liberal, secular views, consent to be governed in the same way. In some way of course this is a fantasy - there will always be disagreement, and the freedom to disagree is healthy. But my view is that this common view has got substantially weaker over my lifetime.

I think it's interesting that you say integration happens in an organic way. My view is that it would be desirable if it did, but that it does not always appear to do so, and nor can it be forced. If it did, I think I would be largely on board with your point of view. But I don't think we can know which of us is right - at least not for another couple of generations. You're clearly an intelligent man though (and I hope I could say the same about myself) and I like it on occasions like this when we identify the differing assumptions which lead different rational people to contrasting points of view.

On economics: I take your point about the demographic drivers for it, but I worry that importing more people is at best a sticking plaster; at worst counter-productive (depending on the economic value of those people we import and their dependents). If our economic model can only work with an ever growing population, we need a new economic model.

Imagine what it would have been like if Ed had won in 2015 with his coalition of chaos.

Thank heaven we dodged that bullet!

Ed Miliband was rightly rejected in 2015. His government would have been a car-crash.

And it wouldn't have made the political problem of EU membership or free movement "go away" either; it would have got worse.

We’d be in a happier place if we still had all those keen young European workers rather than the Boriswave that the Tories gifted us.

All the restaurants and pubs in my locality are now filled with young Britons working there.

I'd say that was a positive thing.

I'd say our economy being 6% or so larger than it is today would have been a more positive one.

And that's why you lost.

People didn't want a nominally larger economy for no change in GDP per head with all the social and cultural change that came with it.

You liked the social and cultural change, because values, yet still think raw GDP is an effective stick to beat those who disagree with you.

You've learned nothing.

Only some of the higher GDP is down to having more workers, GDP per head would also be higher because economic integration boosts productivity. And it's not Iike Brexit reduced immigration, either!

It massively reduced EU immigration.

A political decision was then taken to ramp up global immigration, which I didn't agree with.

The choice remains ours.

Good luck running an economy without immigration, an ageing population and the Conservative party ideology of never increasing taxes.

Imagine what it would have been like if Ed had won in 2015 with his coalition of chaos.

Thank heaven we dodged that bullet!

Ed Miliband was rightly rejected in 2015. His government would have been a car-crash.

And it wouldn't have made the political problem of EU membership or free movement "go away" either; it would have got worse.

We’d be in a happier place if we still had all those keen young European workers rather than the Boriswave that the Tories gifted us.

All the restaurants and pubs in my locality are now filled with young Britons working there.

I'd say that was a positive thing.

I'd say our economy being 6% or so larger than it is today would have been a more positive one.

And that's why you lost.

People didn't want a nominally larger economy for no change in GDP per head with all the social and cultural change that came with it.

You liked the social and cultural change, because values, yet still think raw GDP is an effective stick to beat those who disagree with you.

You've learned nothing.

Much of the public didn’t like the social and cultural change that the Brexiteers delivered subsequently with the large increase in migration, which suggests that the winners learnt nothing too.

I also think this argument that people on the left actively desire higher immigration for 'cultural' reasons is generally incorrect. Speaking for myself at least and other vaguely left wing people of my acquaintance I think our attitudes are subtly different to that. The point is that we can see that immigration is a natural byproduct of an economy with a lopsided age distribution and a world where it is cheaper and easier for people to relocate, and we don't actively dislike immigration because we tend to believe that integration happens in an organic way and we are not attracted to ethnic versions of nationhood. Perhaps this is an unimportant distinction for those who oppose immigration, but I think it might be useful for them to understand our views better. To put it more succinctly, it's not that we like immigration, more that we don't mind it.

...

Very unlikely but it would be welcome. Most fair minded people can see that she's been held to far higher standards than those expected of Farage.

Rayner's problem is she got caught. Farage is so smart he won't get caught and besides the media or social media have no desire to catch him out. Farage is the working man's working man. Now doff your cap in awe!

Rayner's problem is the amount of hay she made with her opponents. Most fair minded people can see she's been holding others to standards she is failing to reach herself.

But your lot were corrupt as can be, PPE scandal, Freebies from their Lordships and loads more and they got caught out, but no one followed it up.

Suggesting Starmer Labour have unfairly punished your bunch, they have been guilty of dereliction of duty and done nothing.

What PPE corruption is this? Do the police know? Do you have any evidence of anyone in the government involved in PPE corruption?

Try this for size.*

https://www.transparency.org.uk/news/new-research-raises-corruption-questions-over-billions-covid-public-spending

I have absolutely no idea why there have not been police investigations and subsequent charges and prosecutions.

* I could have cited loads more studies.

"These figures show Whitehall departments award almost £4.1bn to suppliers with political connections"

I will save you reading the report. All MPs and Lords were asked if they knew any firms that could help in the supply of PPE or in the distribution of drugs. They were given an exclusive weblink to send queries to. This is what happened to the infamous "hancock pub landlord" who also ran a packaging firm, messages his MP, who is health minister, MP sends him the link, and then on his request sends a follow up. And that was it.

There has been no charges of prosecutions because outside of the fantasies, there wasn't corruption. You could argue the Marone woman (who is not a member of the government), her company acted fraudulently, but that's not the same as corruption.

We have a police forced that broke a government minister for his wife accepting points on her driving license, a police force that fined both the Prime Minister and Chancellor for something that, if they appealed would have been thrown out quite sharpish. If there was corruption there, those involved (and MPs and ministers are never involved in the awarding of contracts) would be getting chased without mercy.

Was there corruption? I dont know, but I do know if there was evidence the police would not be taking cover for those politicians involved.

How about this one?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/conservative-mps-ppe-covid-contracts-b1958500.html

Don't forget a Labour MP has been prosecuted. I suspect at some stage when all the inquiries are complete there will be prosecutions.

Starmer is also twinned with Sleepy Joe as far as prosecuting his opponents for genuine industrial scale wrongdoing is concerned.

Their first act of the COVID crisis was to tie suspension of procurement procedures to the emergency measures bill.
They then proceeded to ignore experienced suppliers in favour of their spiv mates, the reason there aren't prosecutions is that the NCA weren't given the funding needed to investigate.

It is possible for two things to be true at once:

1) For at least the that six months we needed a permission procurement regime and to buy what was offered, even if some it turned out to be useless tat, in order to ensure we had some stuff and we had it quickly; and

2) some people took advantage.

Category one will include thousands of hardworking public servants, well meaning politicians, and suppliers who through they could do a job and failed in good faith. Let’s not tar them all with the brush of category two. If we do, more people will die next time.

Instead, let’s find those who took advantage wilfully and throw the book at them.

They ignored trusted suppliers who had stock they could supply, the MD of ARCO was interviewed in the ITV doc, he said on the record that they were ignored by Ministers and resorted to supplying direct to NHS trusts on credit because they knew they were in desperate need of PPE.

The accusation is aimed at Johnson's cabinet, who decided to suspend procurement procedures, those who ran the "fast-track" lane and those who got themselves referred to it.

Let's not pretend that people, with absolutely FA experience of supplying compliant PPE and the requirements, who lobbied political contacts to get on the fast-track lane for £100ms of contracts and then supplied non-compliant equipment did so out of a sense of public duty. They were profiteering and they put NHS workers lives at risk.

...

Very unlikely but it would be welcome. Most fair minded people can see that she's been held to far higher standards than those expected of Farage.

Rayner's problem is she got caught. Farage is so smart he won't get caught and besides the media or social media have no desire to catch him out. Farage is the working man's working man. Now doff your cap in awe!

Rayner's problem is the amount of hay she made with her opponents. Most fair minded people can see she's been holding others to standards she is failing to reach herself.

But your lot were corrupt as can be, PPE scandal, Freebies from their Lordships and loads more and they got caught out, but no one followed it up.

Suggesting Starmer Labour have unfairly punished your bunch, they have been guilty of dereliction of duty and done nothing.

What PPE corruption is this? Do the police know? Do you have any evidence of anyone in the government involved in PPE corruption?

Try this for size.*

https://www.transparency.org.uk/news/new-research-raises-corruption-questions-over-billions-covid-public-spending

I have absolutely no idea why there have not been police investigations and subsequent charges and prosecutions.

* I could have cited loads more studies.

"These figures show Whitehall departments award almost £4.1bn to suppliers with political connections"

I will save you reading the report. All MPs and Lords were asked if they knew any firms that could help in the supply of PPE or in the distribution of drugs. They were given an exclusive weblink to send queries to. This is what happened to the infamous "hancock pub landlord" who also ran a packaging firm, messages his MP, who is health minister, MP sends him the link, and then on his request sends a follow up. And that was it.

There has been no charges of prosecutions because outside of the fantasies, there wasn't corruption. You could argue the Marone woman (who is not a member of the government), her company acted fraudulently, but that's not the same as corruption.

We have a police forced that broke a government minister for his wife accepting points on her driving license, a police force that fined both the Prime Minister and Chancellor for something that, if they appealed would have been thrown out quite sharpish. If there was corruption there, those involved (and MPs and ministers are never involved in the awarding of contracts) would be getting chased without mercy.

Was there corruption? I dont know, but I do know if there was evidence the police would not be taking cover for those politicians involved.

How about this one?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/conservative-mps-ppe-covid-contracts-b1958500.html

Don't forget a Labour MP has been prosecuted. I suspect at some stage when all the inquiries are complete there will be prosecutions.

Starmer is also twinned with Sleepy Joe as far as prosecuting his opponents for genuine industrial scale wrongdoing is concerned.

Their first act of the COVID crisis was to tie suspension of procurement procedures to the emergency measures bill.
They then proceeded to ignore experienced suppliers in favour of their spiv mates, the reason there aren't prosecutions is that the NCA weren't given the funding needed to investigate.

It is possible for two things to be true at once:

1) For at least the that first six months we needed a permissive procurement regime and to buy what was offered, even if some it turned out to be useless tat, in order to ensure we had some stuff and we had it quickly; and

2) some people took advantage.

Category one will include thousands of hardworking public servants, well meaning politicians, and suppliers who thought they could do a job and failed in good faith. Let’s not tar them all with the brush of category two. If we do, more people will die next time.

Instead, let’s find those who took advantage wilfully and throw the book at them.