Best Of

This is pure coincidence - I insist - but today I had drinks
(in a rather worryingly quiet Soho) with a young journalist friend

He’s quite right wing for his age. I asked him why. He told me he was red pilled by doing court reporting in various London courts, where he realised how social housing has been captured by various ethnic groups in London Borough councils, who work as clans, and almost openly favour their own ethnicity/clan, as social housing is doled out

Interesting.

Why is it interesting? Leon is always spewing far right conspiracy theories with no evidence (beyond mysterious friends). This tells us that Leon is far right. It doesn't tell us much about the reality outside his head.

I can see why it might be described as populist or right-wing. But calling it far-right is just silly.

Its blood and soil racism. The normal term for that is far right.

As opposed to non-racist low tax economics of the right, which is not what he is engaging in.

This is pure coincidence - I insist - but today I had drinks
(in a rather worryingly quiet Soho) with a young journalist friend

He’s quite right wing for his age. I asked him why. He told me he was red pilled by doing court reporting in various London courts, where he realised how social housing has been captured by various ethnic groups in London Borough councils, who work as clans, and almost openly favour their own ethnicity/clan, as social housing is doled out

Interesting.

Why is it interesting? Leon is always spewing far right conspiracy theories with no evidence (beyond mysterious friends). This tells us that Leon is far right. It doesn't tell us much about the reality outside his head.

Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.

How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?

Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?

I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.

Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.

Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?

It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.

If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?

If we prioritised social housing for people born in the local area then you wouldn’t have anything to worry about.

Most places do.

From the parish, first dibs.
Then adjacent.
Then wait a month.
Then the next ring of parishes. Etc. wait. Etc
Connections of five years or even ten are sometimes needed. Just living somewhere isn’t enough.

The way many things in local government are designed to work, surprisingly reasonable.

Feel free to absorb this and then review your assumptions.

Britain will have to pay the EU a percentage of the value of any weapons bought from UK companies via a Brussels-led defence fund, under plans being drawn up by the bloc to counter the growing threat from Russia. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer in May said the UK would join the EU’s new €150bn Security Action for Europe (Safe) project to boost military spending across the continent, as part of a “reset” of bilateral relations.

https://www.ft.com/content/198271dd-9a89-4279-a28f-6e0cdfeb0912

Seems reasonable in principle, since we don't contribute to the fund itself, don't you think ?

What's the percentage, though ?

"in principle" = Starmer caves to the UK getting rooked by the EU.

This will turn into another great victory.

For Reform.

What are the numbers ?

He may surprise to the upside, but based on past performance, we will be paying in, UK companies won't be able to bid as Lord Hermer will declare it potentially could break international law, Channel Islands will be given to France, Gibraltar to the Spanish and all for the low low level price of £100bn.

You optimist you.

We keep the Falklands?

I mean its only a matter of time until he agrees to give them to Argentina, but keeping in the back pocket for the moment. As such a hardball negotiator remembers he got to keep something back.

@jeremycorbyn
Water privatisation has been a complete & utter failure.

It is absurd that the government's report into the water industry didn't even consider public ownership.

That's not a report. That's a political broadcast for the private sector.

Put water back into public hands, now.
https://x.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1947233172367741305

Water is treated differently from the other utilities. You can be disconnected from the power and gas lines (subject to a Magistrate agreeing) but it is a criminal offence to cut off a water supply. And since it is so different, why was it privatised in the first place?

In part because water pollution pre-privatisation was utterly horrendous and the state-owned and state-managed firms did absolutely nothing to end it because any 'fines' they notionally got were utterly meaningless since it was all state-ran anyway.

Privatising water was a huge success, initially at least, as the firms had a profit motive not to get fined, so it was worth investing and fixing problems.

That only works with a strong regulator that is willing to issue fines though, that puts a real cost on the externality.

More importantly, under state ownership, the state wrote exemptions to rules. Spend money on separating water runoff from sewage? Treasury says - "Doing something costs money. Doing nothing is awesome."

One of the reason for privatisation was that incoming new regulations (quite a few EU related) on tap water quality, were not able to be ignored on the ground that Treasury Says No.

The main reason for water privatisation was that privatisation of everything not nailed down was a magic money tree.

Not just that- when capitalists bought the water companies, they didn't do so out of the goodnesses of their hearts. They had a duty to extract as much value as they could from their new posessions.

My instincts are broadly "yay, capitalism". But only a nitwit would deny that some of its faces are unacceptable.

Which is why you need sensible regulations that ensure that value is maximised by doing a good job.

Polluting? We'll fine you.
Polluting a lot? We'll fine you so much you go bankrupt and lose all your assets.

Instead we're operating as if a private firm going bust for doing a bad job is a failure. In a free market, firms that do a bad job are supposed to fail, that's the market working as intended. Let them fail, let a Newco (or a rival who can do a better job) pick up the pieces and run it better.

Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.

How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?

Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?

I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.

Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.

Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?

It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.

If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?

This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!

Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.

Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.

She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.

He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".

Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.

You don't see an issue with that?

She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".

I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?

No one has misrepresented them.

He said

"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"

Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.

I suggest you learn to read before criticising others

I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.

"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"

Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.

The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.

Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.

So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a question and gives you (and William) your pretend we're not racists get out clause...

Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..

Is the percentage of social housing occupied by foreign-born people not a worthy topic of discussion?

More importantly, nobody born abroad should get social housing in zone 1 of London. It is utterly absurd that large Somalian families can waltz into £3m townhouses that native Brits can only dream of, in their wildest dreams

British citizens should be eligible for the same things as other British citizens. That's how citizenship works. You can tighten the rules about who can get citizenship but once someone has it then it shouldn't matter where they are born.

I get what you are saying but that is not how our system actually works.

As an example, you can only get contributory ESA (for illness/disability therefore not working) if you have paid sufficient (and rather complex) NI rules.

I have no idea what the rules are for social housing but there's no reason based on our current system for there not to be rules that rule out actual citizens

Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.

How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?

Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?

I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.

Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.

Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?

It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.

If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?

This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!

Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.

Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.

She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.

He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".

Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.

You don't see an issue with that?

She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".

I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?

No one has misrepresented them.

He said

"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"

Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.

I suggest you learn to read before criticising others

I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.

"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"

Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.

The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.

Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.

So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a question and gives you (and William) your pretend we're not racists get out clause...

Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..

Is the percentage of social housing occupied by foreign-born people not a worthy topic of discussion?

More importantly, nobody born abroad should get social housing in zone 1 of London. It is utterly absurd that large Somalian families can waltz into £3m townhouses that native Brits can only dream of, in their wildest dreams

British citizens should be eligible for the same things as other British citizens. That's how citizenship works. You can tighten the rules about who can get citizenship but once someone has it then it shouldn't matter where they are born.

I disagree. I think we should have a contributory system and the longer you’ve been in the UK, as a taxpayer, with no criminal record, then the greater your rights to state assistance in housing. I would also add points for military service

And I would take this back a few generations, too. So if you’re - say - third generation British, and your family has unblemished legal history and military service, then yes YOU might get social housing in london zone 1

Note: I am not excluding any British citizen from all state assistance. No one should starve or go homeless. But yes, we should use preference and introduce incentives

I see the logic but I don't agree. I'd rather a first generation citizen who works at St Thomas Hospital (for example) was eligible for Zone 1 social housing than a 10th generation British citizen living in Surrey who had no need of it.

I assume the transport links to St Thomas’ hospital must be atrocious if they can only source employees from central London.

Oh yes very funny it was just an example. Who do you think should qualify for zone 1 social housing then?

Very very few people should qualify for social housing in zone 1. It’s absurd that we have so much and it warps the already fucked property market

But I would reserve ultra-desirable zone 1 housing for 2nd or 3rd generation Brits with NO criminal history, a long record of taxpaying (at least in the family) and more points for military service

What is wrong with providing incentives for good and patriotic behaviour? It’s ridic we don’t do this

If by contrast you’re a large Somalian family who arrived in the last 5 years, with some criminal history, then we will also do our best to help you, but no you’re not gonna get a big house in Westminster