So, it seems the open door liberal economists have won over Sunak. Net immigration >200k/yr for the forseeable future. Mostly low skilled. Once you account for the departure of our young smart emigres, the actual immigration figure will be a fair bit higher.
As we enter the recession - with unemployment predicted to soar - and brits at the bottom of the employment pile have their wages further suppressed, what’s the plan?
Dismiss them as racist, I guess.
Plus ca change.
Why do you think Starmer hasn't signed up to Rejoin?
For Rejoin (either Soft Rejoin (Brexit In Name Only - I dub thee BINO) or Hard Rejoin) to work, there are two major obstacles.
One is that wages have risen substantially in low paid jobs. From talking to business people, the issue is not so much a massive shortage of labour, but that there is a lack of downward pressure on wages in low paid jobs. It used to be that if you advertised a low end job at anything from minimum wage up, someone would take it. Generally economic migrants looking for *something*, *anything* to get on the job ladder.
This isn't migrant blaming or any such shit. Living in central London, you meet, make friends etc with many, many 1st generation migrants. Many, even those in high end jobs *now*, started by cleaning toilets in City offices or similar.
If free movement is resumed, that downward pressure on low end jobs will resume. Unless the labour market is restructured to stop low skilled jobs simply going back to minimum wage.
Which would be a very toxic story for whichever government presides over it.
The other is that Remain is currently selling - "BREXIT is shit. So surrender to the EU and take your deserved punishment" as the narrative.
That is not going to work electorally. What you need to do is sell - "BREXIT is shit. The EU will be a massive improvement for X, Y, Z".
Both are doable - much of Europe has found partial solutions to the labour market issue. If you want Europe, you need to sell Europe as a positive.
The elephant behind the elephant in the room is that the EU would be very reluctant to deal with any request to rejoin. So I don't see the point in policians offering rejoin now, from all the way out here. First we need to realign.
In practice we are already aligned - our regulations are their regulations are our regulations. So a deal to remove our self-inflicted trade barriers would be much simpler to ask for. Once we have that and people accept reality, then you can have conversations about doing more.
As for migration, I would be reasonably happy if we actually made the "point-based migration system work". We have a shit ton of vacancies we cannot fill. We need migrants to fill them. Are we allowing migrants in to fill these on any scale? No. Another self-inflicted stupidity.
What we need is for a brave politician to start asking direct questions. Do you want a job sweeping floors? Cleaning toilets? Wiping someone else's elderly parent's arse? Working monotonous warehouse jobs? If the answer is No, then Shut The Fuck Up.
Your last paragraph is the problem.
The majority of those “Wiping someone else's elderly parent's arse” are U.K. citizens and always have been.
The belief that all low paid jobs used to be done by migrants is a very London centric view and wrong, even there.
You presume that they should be happy to do so for minimum wage. They don’t agree.
The last figures I saw in the sector from memory pre-Brexit was 88% working UK citizens, 6% are non-EU immigrants with a visa, and 6% are EU immigrants.
So the idea that free movement is required because Britons won't do the job is preposterous and always was.
If people won't do the job for minimum wage, then pay more.
If we’re going to have large scale immigration for the foreseeable - plus Dinghy People - then we might as well rejoin the SM
You wouldn’t be saying that if you’d got a £3/hr, 30%, pay rise in the last couple of years, and can now afford to live without claiming benefits.
But now we’re ALL going down the toilet
I dunno what will solve our problems. They stem from the GFC not Brexit. But freeing up trade might help as we work out what to do next
But in part that's because the economy that resulted from the period of Thatcherism was a bit of a mirage. Britain puffed up its growth figures by consuming lots of imports paid for by selling assets.
There's no way to avoid a crap decade or two, but, if the right things are done now there's at least a chance they will improve. I'd suggest the two most important things are, (1) weaken rent-seeking in the economy, (2) boost investment in science, technology and productivity.
The budget yesterday seemed to introduce a load of measures that are the opposite of (2).....while the focus is on how individually everybody is getting whacked, seemed like lots of very poor choices if the idea is to boost business for the future.
So, it seems the open door liberal economists have won over Sunak. Net immigration >200k/yr for the forseeable future. Mostly low skilled. Once you account for the departure of our young smart emigres, the actual immigration figure will be a fair bit higher.
As we enter the recession - with unemployment predicted to soar - and brits at the bottom of the employment pile have their wages further suppressed, what’s the plan?
Dismiss them as racist, I guess.
Plus ca change.
Why do you think Starmer hasn't signed up to Rejoin?
For Rejoin (either Soft Rejoin (Brexit In Name Only - I dub thee BINO) or Hard Rejoin) to work, there are two major obstacles.
One is that wages have risen substantially in low paid jobs. From talking to business people, the issue is not so much a massive shortage of labour, but that there is a lack of downward pressure on wages in low paid jobs. It used to be that if you advertised a low end job at anything from minimum wage up, someone would take it. Generally economic migrants looking for *something*, *anything* to get on the job ladder.
This isn't migrant blaming or any such shit. Living in central London, you meet, make friends etc with many, many 1st generation migrants. Many, even those in high end jobs *now*, started by cleaning toilets in City offices or similar.
If free movement is resumed, that downward pressure on low end jobs will resume. Unless the labour market is restructured to stop low skilled jobs simply going back to minimum wage.
Which would be a very toxic story for whichever government presides over it.
The other is that Remain is currently selling - "BREXIT is shit. So surrender to the EU and take your deserved punishment" as the narrative.
That is not going to work electorally. What you need to do is sell - "BREXIT is shit. The EU will be a massive improvement for X, Y, Z".
Both are doable - much of Europe has found partial solutions to the labour market issue. If you want Europe, you need to sell Europe as a positive.
The elephant behind the elephant in the room is that the EU would be very reluctant to deal with any request to rejoin. So I don't see the point in policians offering rejoin now, from all the way out here. First we need to realign.
In practice we are already aligned - our regulations are their regulations are our regulations. So a deal to remove our self-inflicted trade barriers would be much simpler to ask for. Once we have that and people accept reality, then you can have conversations about doing more.
As for migration, I would be reasonably happy if we actually made the "point-based migration system work". We have a shit ton of vacancies we cannot fill. We need migrants to fill them. Are we allowing migrants in to fill these on any scale? No. Another self-inflicted stupidity.
What we need is for a brave politician to start asking direct questions. Do you want a job sweeping floors? Cleaning toilets? Wiping someone else's elderly parent's arse? Working monotonous warehouse jobs? If the answer is No, then Shut The Fuck Up.
Your last paragraph is the problem.
The majority of those “Wiping someone else's elderly parent's arse” are U.K. citizens and always have been.
The belief that all low paid jobs used to be done by migrants is a very London centric view and wrong, even there.
You presume that they should be happy to do so for minimum wage. They don’t agree.
The last figures I saw in the sector from memory pre-Brexit was 88% working UK citizens, 6% are non-EU immigrants with a visa, and 6% are EU immigrants.
So the idea that free movement is required because Britons won't do the job is preposterous and always was.
If people won't do the job for minimum wage, then pay more.
If we’re going to have large scale immigration for the foreseeable - plus Dinghy People - then we might as well rejoin the SM
You wouldn’t be saying that if you’d got a £3/hr, 30%, pay rise in the last couple of years, and can now afford to live without claiming benefits.
But now we’re ALL going down the toilet
I dunno what will solve our problems. They stem from the GFC not Brexit. But freeing up trade might help as we work out what to do next
Even if you believe the Nike Swoosh theory of Brexitnomics (and I'm not convinced), and accept that there would never be a pleasant time to do the downwards bit ("rip of the plaster" and all that), starting to take the hit in 2019 was unfortunate.
Not in ways that could have been forseen, but unfortunate all the same.
Yes, I’m a Brexiteer, but I readily accept we Brexited at the worst possible time
Once the EU was shaped the way it now is (with UK agreement but no referendums on the relevant matters) there is and can be no good time to leave. Which is one of many reasons why EEA/EFTA was and is the only rational step after 2016.
An independent Scotland will face a lot of the same things vis a vis England and Wales.
No booze or sex outside heterosexual marriage allowed in Qatar, so only the most Puritan football fans allowed
How do they feel about massive amounts of cocaine and fireworks up the arse? Part of me is hoping England fans still manage to disgrace themselves even in the face of utter Qatari joylessness. Something to be obscurely proud of.
It's a very old-fashioned view. England fans have been over-exuberant pussy cats rather than lions for decades now.
Fans will not be allowed to buy alcohol around World Cup stadiums, Sky News understands.
The U-turn comes ahead of the tournament's opening game in Qatar on Sunday.
LOL. Your turn FIFA - postpone the first match?
Sequels are rarely better than the original, but the sequel to Fyre Festival is really shaping up to be a humdinger.
I was going to say that Qatar could use the World Cup to announce themselves to the world, welcome everyone with open arms, and have their own massive Glastonbury Festival in the desert - much as I’ve witnessed from the UAE in the past couple of decades.
But instead, it looks like the mullahs are still in charge, and we’ll be instead watching the Fyre Festival.
I was wined and dined by a Qatari firm in London back in 2017 about a job opportunity. Spectacular pay, and the lifestyle presented was extraordinarily appealing - hard work, but a stunning home, exquisite hotel bars, and a job where my skills would be really valued.
I was all ready to sign on the dotted line, then the UAE diplomatic crisis kicked off, the Qatari stock market crashed and the job offer fell through. I would have signed in a heartbeat back in 2017 - but knowing what I know now, I wouldn't go out there for double the money.
This is a PR disaster for Qatar, and it hasn't even started yet.
That little diplomatic spat caused huge problems for Qatar. Many of the expats working there were employed by UAE companies, because no-one wanted to be on a Qatari visa where your employer basically owns you, and the wives wanted to live in Dubai. That stopped overnight, with thousands of contractors being withdrawn, and construction sites suspended for over a year. The World Cup sites eventually got going again, with massive wages having to be paid to the senior contractors. Thousands of construction managers will now be enjoying retirement in their 40s, having built the WC stadia and hotels.
Yup. The money they were offering to move out there was spectacular - retirement in a decade kind of money.
One red flag, however, was when I was searching on Qatari real estate websites for a place to live. I put in my price bracket (massive, obvs) but in amongst the glittering penthouses were several uh... other properties in the same price bracket. Turns out for the same amount of money pcm, I could rent a bunkhouse fitting up to 40 "workers". Pictures were included. Slave galleys sprung to mind.
Sometimes I wonder why it's all so visible - then I realise - it's because they genuinely don't see anything wrong with this kind of socioeconomic model.
And that is why the world cup is going to be such a disaster. Most tinpot countries build potemkin villages because they *know* how to present themselves to the outside world. Qatar presents itself as it is, and is proud of what it is.
On Topic - I remember when we were having a discussion about voting irregularities on PB. Many people took the line that this didn't happen
Literally while the discussion was happening, the news of the case (in Birmingham IIRC) where several councillor were arrested while supervising a literal vote forging factory came in.
The line then changed to "of course local elections are corrupt, we were talking about *national* elections"
Given the experience of a friend who tried to report his vote stolen in Tower Hamlets (for a national election, among others), I wonder how much suppression of reporting of voting irregularities is going on.
Incidentally, the changes bring the rest of the UK into line with NI.
The problem with voter fraud is that it is not like financial fraud where you may notice your finances being depleted. So detection of voter fraud requires the person being defrauded to be informed and aware. I definitely know of a case of voter fraud that was undetected, and I am sure others will also be aware. That is not to say that it is a bit problem but am fundamentally disagree with the measure Mike has used repeatedly, which is detected cases. That for me is a tip of the iceberg kind of measure - who know the size of the problem below the water.
No booze or sex outside heterosexual marriage allowed in Qatar, so only the most Puritan football fans allowed
How do they feel about massive amounts of cocaine and fireworks up the arse? Part of me is hoping England fans still manage to disgrace themselves even in the face of utter Qatari joylessness. Something to be obscurely proud of.
It seems quite clear that the Qatari gov don't give a monkeys what it looks like to the outside world. I suspect that England fans who behave "as usual" are going to have a very nasty time of it.
Mr. Jonathan, I also think passports should exist.
Do you think it's unreasonable to have any form of ID? Supporting that and not supporting mandatory ID cards and the attached monstrosity of a database is entirely consistent.
Attacking someone for not being in favour of ID cards but (assuming it's akin to the pilot) backing the use of one of any of dozens of ID, including one that's free upon request, is not necessarily compelling as arguments go.
On topic, responding to the comment that you do not need proof of ID to vote by post, but you do need to sign the postal voting statement that has to be returned in the outer envelope with the ballot in the inner envelope. And that signature is checked against the signature on the PV application form before the ballot envelope is passed to the next stage of the Count.
Its now clearer than ever that UK was least equipped to leave EU of any member..low productivity, low skilled economy dependent on single market on many fronts including free movement.. and the N Ireland conundrum for which there’s no solution except a united Ireland. What a mess https://twitter.com/steverichards14/status/1593560581591560192
This is just hyperbolic nonsense....the LEAST equipped of any EU member.....Hungary for instance is just about to get EU funding worth 10% of GDP. Its so crucial that Orban has had to bow to pressure.
No case can ever be sufficiently overstated.
It's pretty plain that had we never left the EU, our fiscal position, and rate of inflation would be much the same as it is now.
If our problem is low productivity then the solution is to take steps to deal with low productivity. Although, as Robert Smithson has frequently pointed out, it's the least useful economic statistic. High productivity is often a feature of low levels of employment.
In general, I think the government is stupid to be trying to plug the fiscal gap at this point. Over the past two and a half years, we've faced the fiscal equivalent of a wartime situation. Our debt to GDP ratio is not out of line with the rich world average.
Unfortunately, after Theresa May's failure to win a majority, the Conservative Party proved itself incompetent and corrupt. Labour under Corbyn was worse, but now it is not.
So, it seems the open door liberal economists have won over Sunak. Net immigration >200k/yr for the forseeable future. Mostly low skilled. Once you account for the departure of our young smart emigres, the actual immigration figure will be a fair bit higher.
As we enter the recession - with unemployment predicted to soar - and brits at the bottom of the employment pile have their wages further suppressed, what’s the plan?
Dismiss them as racist, I guess.
Plus ca change.
Why do you think Starmer hasn't signed up to Rejoin?
For Rejoin (either Soft Rejoin (Brexit In Name Only - I dub thee BINO) or Hard Rejoin) to work, there are two major obstacles.
One is that wages have risen substantially in low paid jobs. From talking to business people, the issue is not so much a massive shortage of labour, but that there is a lack of downward pressure on wages in low paid jobs. It used to be that if you advertised a low end job at anything from minimum wage up, someone would take it. Generally economic migrants looking for *something*, *anything* to get on the job ladder.
This isn't migrant blaming or any such shit. Living in central London, you meet, make friends etc with many, many 1st generation migrants. Many, even those in high end jobs *now*, started by cleaning toilets in City offices or similar.
If free movement is resumed, that downward pressure on low end jobs will resume. Unless the labour market is restructured to stop low skilled jobs simply going back to minimum wage.
Which would be a very toxic story for whichever government presides over it.
The other is that Remain is currently selling - "BREXIT is shit. So surrender to the EU and take your deserved punishment" as the narrative.
That is not going to work electorally. What you need to do is sell - "BREXIT is shit. The EU will be a massive improvement for X, Y, Z".
Both are doable - much of Europe has found partial solutions to the labour market issue. If you want Europe, you need to sell Europe as a positive.
The elephant behind the elephant in the room is that the EU would be very reluctant to deal with any request to rejoin. So I don't see the point in policians offering rejoin now, from all the way out here. First we need to realign.
In practice we are already aligned - our regulations are their regulations are our regulations. So a deal to remove our self-inflicted trade barriers would be much simpler to ask for. Once we have that and people accept reality, then you can have conversations about doing more.
As for migration, I would be reasonably happy if we actually made the "point-based migration system work". We have a shit ton of vacancies we cannot fill. We need migrants to fill them. Are we allowing migrants in to fill these on any scale? No. Another self-inflicted stupidity.
What we need is for a brave politician to start asking direct questions. Do you want a job sweeping floors? Cleaning toilets? Wiping someone else's elderly parent's arse? Working monotonous warehouse jobs? If the answer is No, then Shut The Fuck Up.
Your last paragraph is the problem.
The majority of those “Wiping someone else's elderly parent's arse” are U.K. citizens and always have been.
The belief that all low paid jobs used to be done by migrants is a very London centric view and wrong, even there.
You presume that they should be happy to do so for minimum wage. They don’t agree.
Fair enough. Though in the specific case of care workers, that means putting more money (let's be honest, a lot more money) into social care.
Which the voting public have been notably reluctant to do.
It's not just care workers. A friend commented that his daughter at university now needs much less support - her bar job in the Union makes he "hundreds a week". Mind you, he then complained about the wage rises for people working for him. Yes, he hadn't actually joined the dots. Not in a bad way, but just not made the connection.
No-one gives pay rises just because. The workers have to er... insist?
Which is the whole point of industrial relations - two parties pulling in various directions. The result is something of a compromise.
The issue comes when employers which includes the NHS - one of the biggest employers of the very low paid - have an unlimited supply of low skilled labour to draw on. Then the minimum wage become the norm, not the floor.
This is awesome for me (I work in a skilled profession where there is a world wide shortage), so Deliveroo can get me my takeaway for a couple of quid, when I am too lazy to go out in the rain. This is not so awesome for the Deliveroo riders, or the low end staff in the restaurant.
Presumably then you will be supporting the industrial action by nurses and other NHS staff? After all there are many unfilled vacancies, and pay has been eroded over the years.
Mr. Jonathan, I also think passports should exist.
Do you think it's unreasonable to have any form of ID? Supporting that and not supporting mandatory ID cards and the attached monstrosity of a database is entirely consistent.
Attacking someone for not being in favour of ID cards but (assuming it's akin to the pilot) backing the use of one of any of dozens of ID, including one that's free upon request, is not necessarily compelling as arguments go.
Voting should be as easy as possible. It's important.
It's basically the same trick as they played with individual electoral registration.
Come up with a new system which is going to have little impact on older voters but will just happen to disenfranchise many younger voters unless they really get their finger out to avoid their vote being suppressed. But many won't until its too late.
Then it worked a treat for Cameron (in 2015) because older people didn't move around a lot, in contrast to younger people, so pensioners were pretty well all transferred automatically onto the new electoral roll with little difficulty but young people weren't. Areas of poorer private rented accommodation and ethnic minority populations saw the most problems. It probably did personally for Cameron, as the problem was still there in 2016 at the Brexit referendum after which he went.
Now something similar is going to apply to when you actually go to the polling station.
The way things are going, voter suppression in the UK is going to reach levels unseen outside of a few US states.
I think that this is a somewhat hyperbolic response. I have had 2 kids come on to the electoral roll in the last few years. One happened fairly automatically through her school. The other didn't bother himself and was pursued surprisingly enthusiastically by the local Electoral Officer until he finally completed the necessary paperwork. My understanding is that most schools facilitate at least the first entry on the rolls.
Of course it is true that younger people move around more and have more temporary addresses as they look to get going in their careers or their studies. It is inevitable that more of them will fall through the cracks once they have left home. Efforts should be made to encourage them to take this seriously and to be registered. But I do not see anything in this country that comes within a million miles of the US systems which can prevent those with a conviction from voting (when convicts for lots of social reasons and naked racism are preponderately black) in the UK, and that is a good thing.
Our system points both ways oddly. Both registration and actually voting (under the new proposals) make it a little difficult for younger voters and very mobile/disorganised/indifferent/unengaged voters. While the postal vote system, unregulated, allows vote farming with few checks.
Fans will not be allowed to buy alcohol around World Cup stadiums, Sky News understands.
The U-turn comes ahead of the tournament's opening game in Qatar on Sunday.
Sub optimal issue to pick. Qataris are guilty of utterly egregious outrages of all sorts. The Islamic traditions about alcohol is not one of them; any more than the UK ban on cocaine is an outrage, regardless of personal opinions.
Same with the fact that the World Cup is not being played in the Northern Hemisphere Summer. However, that's what they bid for. They knew what they were signing up for and have reneged on these deals.
Fans will not be allowed to buy alcohol around World Cup stadiums, Sky News understands.
The U-turn comes ahead of the tournament's opening game in Qatar on Sunday.
LOL. Your turn FIFA - postpone the first match?
Sequels are rarely better than the original, but the sequel to Fyre Festival is really shaping up to be a humdinger.
I was going to say that Qatar could use the World Cup to announce themselves to the world, welcome everyone with open arms, and have their own massive Glastonbury Festival in the desert - much as I’ve witnessed from the UAE in the past couple of decades.
But instead, it looks like the mullahs are still in charge, and we’ll be instead watching the Fyre Festival.
I was wined and dined by a Qatari firm in London back in 2017 about a job opportunity. Spectacular pay, and the lifestyle presented was extraordinarily appealing - hard work, but a stunning home, exquisite hotel bars, and a job where my skills would be really valued.
I was all ready to sign on the dotted line, then the UAE diplomatic crisis kicked off, the Qatari stock market crashed and the job offer fell through. I would have signed in a heartbeat back in 2017 - but knowing what I know now, I wouldn't go out there for double the money.
This is a PR disaster for Qatar, and it hasn't even started yet.
That little diplomatic spat caused huge problems for Qatar. Many of the expats working there were employed by UAE companies, because no-one wanted to be on a Qatari visa where your employer basically owns you, and the wives wanted to live in Dubai. That stopped overnight, with thousands of contractors being withdrawn, and construction sites suspended for over a year. The World Cup sites eventually got going again, with massive wages having to be paid to the senior contractors. Thousands of construction managers will now be enjoying retirement in their 40s, having built the WC stadia and hotels.
Yup. The money they were offering to move out there was spectacular - retirement in a decade kind of money.
One red flag, however, was when I was searching on Qatari real estate websites for a place to live. I put in my price bracket (massive, obvs) but in amongst the glittering penthouses were several uh... other properties in the same price bracket. Turns out for the same amount of money pcm, I could rent a bunkhouse fitting up to 40 "workers". Pictures were included. Slave galleys sprung to mind.
Sometimes I wonder why it's all so visible - then I realise - it's because they genuinely don't see anything wrong with this kind of socioeconomic model.
And that is why the world cup is going to be such a disaster. Most tinpot countries build potemkin villages because they *know* how to present themselves to the outside world. Qatar presents itself as it is, and is proud of what it is.
Chaos will ensue.
The other point is ‘rent’ - it’s difficult to buy property there if you’re not Qatari or at least GCC national.
I’m actually quite pragmatic when it comes to worker accommodation, having seen what the slums of Pakistan and Bangladesh look like. And having seen what the slums of Slough look like, where a 3-bed house is regularly cleared out with 20 or more people living there.
So, it seems the open door liberal economists have won over Sunak. Net immigration >200k/yr for the forseeable future. Mostly low skilled. Once you account for the departure of our young smart emigres, the actual immigration figure will be a fair bit higher.
As we enter the recession - with unemployment predicted to soar - and brits at the bottom of the employment pile have their wages further suppressed, what’s the plan?
Dismiss them as racist, I guess.
Plus ca change.
Why do you think Starmer hasn't signed up to Rejoin?
For Rejoin (either Soft Rejoin (Brexit In Name Only - I dub thee BINO) or Hard Rejoin) to work, there are two major obstacles.
One is that wages have risen substantially in low paid jobs. From talking to business people, the issue is not so much a massive shortage of labour, but that there is a lack of downward pressure on wages in low paid jobs. It used to be that if you advertised a low end job at anything from minimum wage up, someone would take it. Generally economic migrants looking for *something*, *anything* to get on the job ladder.
This isn't migrant blaming or any such shit. Living in central London, you meet, make friends etc with many, many 1st generation migrants. Many, even those in high end jobs *now*, started by cleaning toilets in City offices or similar.
If free movement is resumed, that downward pressure on low end jobs will resume. Unless the labour market is restructured to stop low skilled jobs simply going back to minimum wage.
Which would be a very toxic story for whichever government presides over it.
The other is that Remain is currently selling - "BREXIT is shit. So surrender to the EU and take your deserved punishment" as the narrative.
That is not going to work electorally. What you need to do is sell - "BREXIT is shit. The EU will be a massive improvement for X, Y, Z".
Both are doable - much of Europe has found partial solutions to the labour market issue. If you want Europe, you need to sell Europe as a positive.
The elephant behind the elephant in the room is that the EU would be very reluctant to deal with any request to rejoin. So I don't see the point in policians offering rejoin now, from all the way out here. First we need to realign.
In practice we are already aligned - our regulations are their regulations are our regulations. So a deal to remove our self-inflicted trade barriers would be much simpler to ask for. Once we have that and people accept reality, then you can have conversations about doing more.
As for migration, I would be reasonably happy if we actually made the "point-based migration system work". We have a shit ton of vacancies we cannot fill. We need migrants to fill them. Are we allowing migrants in to fill these on any scale? No. Another self-inflicted stupidity.
What we need is for a brave politician to start asking direct questions. Do you want a job sweeping floors? Cleaning toilets? Wiping someone else's elderly parent's arse? Working monotonous warehouse jobs? If the answer is No, then Shut The Fuck Up.
Your last paragraph is the problem.
The majority of those “Wiping someone else's elderly parent's arse” are U.K. citizens and always have been.
The belief that all low paid jobs used to be done by migrants is a very London centric view and wrong, even there.
You presume that they should be happy to do so for minimum wage. They don’t agree.
Fair enough. Though in the specific case of care workers, that means putting more money (let's be honest, a lot more money) into social care.
Which the voting public have been notably reluctant to do.
It's not just care workers. A friend commented that his daughter at university now needs much less support - her bar job in the Union makes he "hundreds a week". Mind you, he then complained about the wage rises for people working for him. Yes, he hadn't actually joined the dots. Not in a bad way, but just not made the connection.
No-one gives pay rises just because. The workers have to er... insist?
Which is the whole point of industrial relations - two parties pulling in various directions. The result is something of a compromise.
The issue comes when employers which includes the NHS - one of the biggest employers of the very low paid - have an unlimited supply of low skilled labour to draw on. Then the minimum wage become the norm, not the floor.
This is awesome for me (I work in a skilled profession where there is a world wide shortage), so Deliveroo can get me my takeaway for a couple of quid, when I am too lazy to go out in the rain. This is not so awesome for the Deliveroo riders, or the low end staff in the restaurant.
Presumably then you will be supporting the industrial action by nurses and other NHS staff? After all there are many unfilled vacancies, and pay has been eroded over the years.
I'd say that I'd definitely understand the strikes.
My fix for that issue would be a no-strike agreement, such as have been used in many industries, which uses third party assessments for wage increases. Now, I wonder why no government would be keen on that?
“Tax burden unlikely to go back to pre-Covid levels in 'next few decades' We’re in a “new era” of higher taxation and higher spending as a fraction of national income as a bigger state.”
“The British people “just got a lot poorer”, a leading thinktank has warned, after a series of “economic own goals” that have made a recovery much harder than it might have been.
In his verdict on the chancellor’s autumn statement, Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), said the government was “reaping the costs of a long-term failure to grow the economy”, along with an ageing population and high levels of historic borrowing.”
On topic there is actually some logic behind as was explained last night. Obtaining the 60+ Oyster is dependent on providing other proof of identification - thus it is a proxy ID. There is no such requirement for the 18+ card, so it is not suitable.
Of course it can and will be spun as an attempt to stop younger voters, Having read the debate last night I now think it is cack-handed but not malicious.
I have always said that ID should only be needed to vote if you do not bring your Polling Card. Job done.
I am absolutely certain the intention is to make it more difficult for younger people to vote than older people. Even if the project started as an attempt to address a real perceived problem (already doubtful), now it is known to create big biases it would be dropped as unworkable, unless the intention is precisely to take advantage of those biases.
Surely the solution is that you need ID to get an oyster 18+ card and can use it for ID purposes - simple
Its now clearer than ever that UK was least equipped to leave EU of any member..low productivity, low skilled economy dependent on single market on many fronts including free movement.. and the N Ireland conundrum for which there’s no solution except a united Ireland. What a mess https://twitter.com/steverichards14/status/1593560581591560192
This is just hyperbolic nonsense....the LEAST equipped of any EU member.....Hungary for instance is just about to get EU funding worth 10% of GDP. Its so crucial that Orban has had to bow to pressure.
No case can ever be sufficiently overstated.
It's pretty plain that had we never left the EU, our fiscal position, and rate of inflation would be much the same as it is now.
If our problem is low productivity then the solution is to take steps to deal with low productivity. Although, as Robert Smithson has frequently pointed out, it's the least useful economic statistic. High productivity is often a feature of low levels of employment.
In general, I think the government is stupid to be trying to plug the fiscal gap at this point. Over the past two and a half years, we've faced the fiscal equivalent of a wartime situation. Our debt to GDP ratio is not out of line with the rich world average.
Unfortunately, after Theresa May's failure to win a majority, the Conservative Party proved itself incompetent and corrupt. Labour under Corbyn was worse, but now it is not.
I made this point last night about productivity. I believe one key element of the productivity problem relates back to 2008. Usually in recession we see high unemployment, significant numbers of businesses go bust and those that survive have to do so by looking to optimise every which way they can and regenerate. Out of the ashes of previous recessions, have grown strong new and renewed businesses.
In 2008, yes we saw unemployment rise, but way below previous recessions. Instead the government fired up the printing presses, policies were already in place that effectively subsidised employment via things like tax credits and elsewhere rather than unemployment we saw widespread wage (real term) reductions. Now you could argue that is preferable to the sort of unemployment we saw in say the 80s, but it also meant a lot of businesses staggered along without really reforming process.
Since then the cheap money tap / credit has continued to be turned on for the past 15 years, unrealistically low interest rates, living beyond our means with high borrowing and no real push for productivity gains from government or the market.
Then disruption of Brexit, following by world war-esque global pandemic and final kick in the nuts of a war in Europe between countries that provide key staple goods.
“Tax burden unlikely to go back to pre-Covid levels in 'next few decades' We’re in a “new era” of higher taxation and higher spending as a fraction of national income as a bigger state.”
“The British people “just got a lot poorer”, a leading thinktank has warned, after a series of “economic own goals” that have made a recovery much harder than it might have been.
In his verdict on the chancellor’s autumn statement, Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), said the government was “reaping the costs of a long-term failure to grow the economy”, along with an ageing population and high levels of historic borrowing.”
A vicious cycle. Tax people more, people spend less, the economy contracts, people leave if they can, tax revenue falls, taxes need to rise to cover the shortfall, people spend even less, etc, etc...
I can't remember if this is the current proposal/state of affairs, but the pilot for voter ID did enable anyone who didn't have one of he dozens of suitable types to get one for free, upon request from their local council. If that's the case, then there's no problem at all.
Of course there is a problem. You are completely tone deaf on this.
Voting should be easy – a fundamental human right – it should not involve jumping through various bureaucratic hoops set by some governmental shill in Whitehall and fully endorsed by 'Morris Dancer'.
People who are against ID cards as basic freedom are now mysteriously in favour of compulsory ID at moments when it favours them electorally. Hmmm.
Funny. Old. World.
My initial reaction to this was 'well, yes it does favour them electorally to have fewer fraudulent votes for the other party'. Labour tend to take a frustratingly relaxed view of electoral fraud because it benefits them. (I remember when all-postal votes were introduced for the 2002 (or thereabouts) European elections someone from Labour (Peter Hain, or someone like him) declaring that increased electoral fraud was an acceptable price to pay for increased turnout.)
But I do see your point as well.
Both sides here see themselves as morally in the right, and have a reasonably good case in doing so.
That is quite a contention.
My understanding is that fraud is at such a low level in this country that the voting ID is a solution looking for a problem.
Its now clearer than ever that UK was least equipped to leave EU of any member..low productivity, low skilled economy dependent on single market on many fronts including free movement.. and the N Ireland conundrum for which there’s no solution except a united Ireland. What a mess https://twitter.com/steverichards14/status/1593560581591560192
I see that even Leon is now saying that Brexit was sub-optimal. We are where we are and all that, but the Brexit utopians - Boris, Farage, Hannon etc. - really deserve nothing but exile from the public sphere.
Except BoZo and his fanbois are plotting his triumphant return, again...
Fans will not be allowed to buy alcohol around World Cup stadiums, Sky News understands.
The U-turn comes ahead of the tournament's opening game in Qatar on Sunday.
LOL. Your turn FIFA - postpone the first match?
Sequels are rarely better than the original, but the sequel to Fyre Festival is really shaping up to be a humdinger.
I was going to say that Qatar could use the World Cup to announce themselves to the world, welcome everyone with open arms, and have their own massive Glastonbury Festival in the desert - much as I’ve witnessed from the UAE in the past couple of decades.
But instead, it looks like the mullahs are still in charge, and we’ll be instead watching the Fyre Festival.
I was wined and dined by a Qatari firm in London back in 2017 about a job opportunity. Spectacular pay, and the lifestyle presented was extraordinarily appealing - hard work, but a stunning home, exquisite hotel bars, and a job where my skills would be really valued.
I was all ready to sign on the dotted line, then the UAE diplomatic crisis kicked off, the Qatari stock market crashed and the job offer fell through. I would have signed in a heartbeat back in 2017 - but knowing what I know now, I wouldn't go out there for double the money.
This is a PR disaster for Qatar, and it hasn't even started yet.
That little diplomatic spat caused huge problems for Qatar. Many of the expats working there were employed by UAE companies, because no-one wanted to be on a Qatari visa where your employer basically owns you, and the wives wanted to live in Dubai. That stopped overnight, with thousands of contractors being withdrawn, and construction sites suspended for over a year. The World Cup sites eventually got going again, with massive wages having to be paid to the senior contractors. Thousands of construction managers will now be enjoying retirement in their 40s, having built the WC stadia and hotels.
Yup. The money they were offering to move out there was spectacular - retirement in a decade kind of money.
One red flag, however, was when I was searching on Qatari real estate websites for a place to live. I put in my price bracket (massive, obvs) but in amongst the glittering penthouses were several uh... other properties in the same price bracket. Turns out for the same amount of money pcm, I could rent a bunkhouse fitting up to 40 "workers". Pictures were included. Slave galleys sprung to mind.
Sometimes I wonder why it's all so visible - then I realise - it's because they genuinely don't see anything wrong with this kind of socioeconomic model.
And that is why the world cup is going to be such a disaster. Most tinpot countries build potemkin villages because they *know* how to present themselves to the outside world. Qatar presents itself as it is, and is proud of what it is.
Chaos will ensue.
Yes, it's quite striking the way - even with the eyes of the world upon them - they aren't covering up behaviour which the rest of the world might disapprove of. My inference is that they are so disconnected from the outside world that they absolutely don't see why the rest of the world might look askance at this. See also the goons stopping the Danish TV crew from filming.
So that’s ok then. The UK economy should be back on track by 2093, when everyone’s brain will finally be uploaded to Dalle-882//, a kakabyte galacto-puter orbiting exoplanet Proxima Musk
“Tax burden unlikely to go back to pre-Covid levels in 'next few decades' We’re in a “new era” of higher taxation and higher spending as a fraction of national income as a bigger state.”
“The British people “just got a lot poorer”, a leading thinktank has warned, after a series of “economic own goals” that have made a recovery much harder than it might have been.
In his verdict on the chancellor’s autumn statement, Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), said the government was “reaping the costs of a long-term failure to grow the economy”, along with an ageing population and high levels of historic borrowing.”
A vicious cycle. Tax people more, people spend less, the economy contracts, people leave if they can, tax revenue falls, taxes need to rise to cover the shortfall, people spend even less, etc, etc...
Taxes are much higher in Scandinavia, France, even Germany. But public and private investment is also higher, education and skills are much higher, and they didn't have Thatcherism.
On Topic - I remember when we were having a discussion about voting irregularities on PB. Many people took the line that this didn't happen
Literally while the discussion was happening, the news of the case (in Birmingham IIRC) where several councillor were arrested while supervising a literal vote forging factory came in.
The line then changed to "of course local elections are corrupt, we were talking about *national* elections"
Given the experience of a friend who tried to report his vote stolen in Tower Hamlets (for a national election, among others), I wonder how much suppression of reporting of voting irregularities is going on.
Incidentally, the changes bring the rest of the UK into line with NI.
The problem with voter fraud is that it is not like financial fraud where you may notice your finances being depleted. So detection of voter fraud requires the person being defrauded to be informed and aware. I definitely know of a case of voter fraud that was undetected, and I am sure others will also be aware. That is not to say that it is a bit problem but am fundamentally disagree with the measure Mike has used repeatedly, which is detected cases. That for me is a tip of the iceberg kind of measure - who know the size of the problem below the water.
Personation (in-person voter fraud) is easy to detect. You turn up at the polling station and are told you have already voted. Fraud detected. Or you voted early, and later on your imposter turns up and is told he has already voted. Fraud detected.
The number of votes you'd need to swing to affect the result in most constituencies means it is not even worth bothering, so no-one bothers which is why next to no fraud is detected.
Postal votes and proxies, on the other hand, are open to fraud, and other recent worrying developments are allowing pressure and selfies inside polling stations, about which the government seems strangely unconcerned.
No booze or sex outside heterosexual marriage allowed in Qatar, so only the most Puritan football fans allowed
How do they feel about massive amounts of cocaine and fireworks up the arse? Part of me is hoping England fans still manage to disgrace themselves even in the face of utter Qatari joylessness. Something to be obscurely proud of.
It's a very old-fashioned view. England fans have been over-exuberant pussy cats rather than lions for decades now.
I know they aren't perhaps in the same league as, say, the Russians for violence. But there can be few in the league of the England fans for sheer exuberant dickishness.
So, it seems the open door liberal economists have won over Sunak. Net immigration >200k/yr for the forseeable future. Mostly low skilled. Once you account for the departure of our young smart emigres, the actual immigration figure will be a fair bit higher.
As we enter the recession - with unemployment predicted to soar - and brits at the bottom of the employment pile have their wages further suppressed, what’s the plan?
Dismiss them as racist, I guess.
Plus ca change.
Why do you think Starmer hasn't signed up to Rejoin?
For Rejoin (either Soft Rejoin (Brexit In Name Only - I dub thee BINO) or Hard Rejoin) to work, there are two major obstacles.
One is that wages have risen substantially in low paid jobs. From talking to business people, the issue is not so much a massive shortage of labour, but that there is a lack of downward pressure on wages in low paid jobs. It used to be that if you advertised a low end job at anything from minimum wage up, someone would take it. Generally economic migrants looking for *something*, *anything* to get on the job ladder.
This isn't migrant blaming or any such shit. Living in central London, you meet, make friends etc with many, many 1st generation migrants. Many, even those in high end jobs *now*, started by cleaning toilets in City offices or similar.
If free movement is resumed, that downward pressure on low end jobs will resume. Unless the labour market is restructured to stop low skilled jobs simply going back to minimum wage.
Which would be a very toxic story for whichever government presides over it.
The other is that Remain is currently selling - "BREXIT is shit. So surrender to the EU and take your deserved punishment" as the narrative.
That is not going to work electorally. What you need to do is sell - "BREXIT is shit. The EU will be a massive improvement for X, Y, Z".
Both are doable - much of Europe has found partial solutions to the labour market issue. If you want Europe, you need to sell Europe as a positive.
The elephant behind the elephant in the room is that the EU would be very reluctant to deal with any request to rejoin. So I don't see the point in policians offering rejoin now, from all the way out here. First we need to realign.
In practice we are already aligned - our regulations are their regulations are our regulations. So a deal to remove our self-inflicted trade barriers would be much simpler to ask for. Once we have that and people accept reality, then you can have conversations about doing more.
As for migration, I would be reasonably happy if we actually made the "point-based migration system work". We have a shit ton of vacancies we cannot fill. We need migrants to fill them. Are we allowing migrants in to fill these on any scale? No. Another self-inflicted stupidity.
What we need is for a brave politician to start asking direct questions. Do you want a job sweeping floors? Cleaning toilets? Wiping someone else's elderly parent's arse? Working monotonous warehouse jobs? If the answer is No, then Shut The Fuck Up.
Your last paragraph is the problem.
The majority of those “Wiping someone else's elderly parent's arse” are U.K. citizens and always have been.
The belief that all low paid jobs used to be done by migrants is a very London centric view and wrong, even there.
You presume that they should be happy to do so for minimum wage. They don’t agree.
Fair enough. Though in the specific case of care workers, that means putting more money (let's be honest, a lot more money) into social care.
Which the voting public have been notably reluctant to do.
It's not just care workers. A friend commented that his daughter at university now needs much less support - her bar job in the Union makes he "hundreds a week". Mind you, he then complained about the wage rises for people working for him. Yes, he hadn't actually joined the dots. Not in a bad way, but just not made the connection.
No-one gives pay rises just because. The workers have to er... insist?
Which is the whole point of industrial relations - two parties pulling in various directions. The result is something of a compromise.
The issue comes when employers which includes the NHS - one of the biggest employers of the very low paid - have an unlimited supply of low skilled labour to draw on. Then the minimum wage become the norm, not the floor.
This is awesome for me (I work in a skilled profession where there is a world wide shortage), so Deliveroo can get me my takeaway for a couple of quid, when I am too lazy to go out in the rain. This is not so awesome for the Deliveroo riders, or the low end staff in the restaurant.
Presumably then you will be supporting the industrial action by nurses and other NHS staff? After all there are many unfilled vacancies, and pay has been eroded over the years.
I'd say that I'd definitely understand the strikes.
My fix for that issue would be a no-strike agreement, such as have been used in many industries, which uses third party assessments for wage increases. Now, I wonder why no government would be keen on that?
A agreement like, I believe, the police.
Which, however, the Scottish Conservatives are claiming [edit] are or had been already "on strike" in Scotland. Which is news to everyone else. Though not news that they are using this claim to blame the SNP.
Fans will not be allowed to buy alcohol around World Cup stadiums, Sky News understands.
The U-turn comes ahead of the tournament's opening game in Qatar on Sunday.
LOL. Your turn FIFA - postpone the first match?
Sequels are rarely better than the original, but the sequel to Fyre Festival is really shaping up to be a humdinger.
I was going to say that Qatar could use the World Cup to announce themselves to the world, welcome everyone with open arms, and have their own massive Glastonbury Festival in the desert - much as I’ve witnessed from the UAE in the past couple of decades.
But instead, it looks like the mullahs are still in charge, and we’ll be instead watching the Fyre Festival.
I was wined and dined by a Qatari firm in London back in 2017 about a job opportunity. Spectacular pay, and the lifestyle presented was extraordinarily appealing - hard work, but a stunning home, exquisite hotel bars, and a job where my skills would be really valued.
I was all ready to sign on the dotted line, then the UAE diplomatic crisis kicked off, the Qatari stock market crashed and the job offer fell through. I would have signed in a heartbeat back in 2017 - but knowing what I know now, I wouldn't go out there for double the money.
This is a PR disaster for Qatar, and it hasn't even started yet.
That little diplomatic spat caused huge problems for Qatar. Many of the expats working there were employed by UAE companies, because no-one wanted to be on a Qatari visa where your employer basically owns you, and the wives wanted to live in Dubai. That stopped overnight, with thousands of contractors being withdrawn, and construction sites suspended for over a year. The World Cup sites eventually got going again, with massive wages having to be paid to the senior contractors. Thousands of construction managers will now be enjoying retirement in their 40s, having built the WC stadia and hotels.
Yup. The money they were offering to move out there was spectacular - retirement in a decade kind of money.
One red flag, however, was when I was searching on Qatari real estate websites for a place to live. I put in my price bracket (massive, obvs) but in amongst the glittering penthouses were several uh... other properties in the same price bracket. Turns out for the same amount of money pcm, I could rent a bunkhouse fitting up to 40 "workers". Pictures were included. Slave galleys sprung to mind.
Sometimes I wonder why it's all so visible - then I realise - it's because they genuinely don't see anything wrong with this kind of socioeconomic model.
And that is why the world cup is going to be such a disaster. Most tinpot countries build potemkin villages because they *know* how to present themselves to the outside world. Qatar presents itself as it is, and is proud of what it is.
Chaos will ensue.
The other point is ‘rent’ - it’s difficult to buy property there if you’re not Qatari or at least GCC national.
I’m actually quite pragmatic when it comes to worker accommodation, having seen what the slums of Pakistan and Bangladesh look like. And having seen what the slums of Slough look like, where a 3-bed house is regularly cleared out with 20 or more people living there.
A fair point, that. We, and other countries, are just as bad for it.
The difference is that we don't advertise "beds in sheds" on rightmove.com side by side prime London property, because we know it's not something to be proud of. In Qatar, I found it was just all out in the open.
As you say, we are just as bad for it. There is an argument to be said that we're the hypocrites, at least the Qataris are being honest about it.
“Tax burden unlikely to go back to pre-Covid levels in 'next few decades' We’re in a “new era” of higher taxation and higher spending as a fraction of national income as a bigger state.”
“The British people “just got a lot poorer”, a leading thinktank has warned, after a series of “economic own goals” that have made a recovery much harder than it might have been.
In his verdict on the chancellor’s autumn statement, Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), said the government was “reaping the costs of a long-term failure to grow the economy”, along with an ageing population and high levels of historic borrowing.”
A vicious cycle. Tax people more, people spend less, the economy contracts, people leave if they can, tax revenue falls, taxes need to rise to cover the shortfall, people spend even less, etc, etc...
Yes. Exactly. It’s how New York City went bust in the 1970s
Britain is about to become the South Bronx in 1978. It’s time to move to LA
No booze or sex outside heterosexual marriage allowed in Qatar, so only the most Puritan football fans allowed
How do they feel about massive amounts of cocaine and fireworks up the arse? Part of me is hoping England fans still manage to disgrace themselves even in the face of utter Qatari joylessness. Something to be obscurely proud of.
It's a very old-fashioned view. England fans have been over-exuberant pussy cats rather than lions for decades now.
Haven't seen the neighbour's pussies go around with fireworks up their botties lately.
On topic there is actually some logic behind as was explained last night. Obtaining the 60+ Oyster is dependent on providing other proof of identification - thus it is a proxy ID. There is no such requirement for the 18+ card, so it is not suitable.
Of course it can and will be spun as an attempt to stop younger voters, Having read the debate last night I now think it is cack-handed but not malicious.
I have always said that ID should only be needed to vote if you do not bring your Polling Card. Job done.
I am absolutely certain the intention is to make it more difficult for younger people to vote than older people. Even if the project started as an attempt to address a real perceived problem (already doubtful), now it is known to create big biases it would be dropped as unworkable, unless the intention is precisely to take advantage of those biases.
Surely the solution is that you need ID to get an oyster 18+ card and can use it for ID purposes - simple
My assumption is that the “Oyster 18+” card, is a specific London scheme, whereas the “Oyster 60+” card, is part of a national scheme of OAP transport passes. The Tweet in the headline being deliberately disingenuous in trying to compare the two, in order to advance their narrative.
I can't remember if this is the current proposal/state of affairs, but the pilot for voter ID did enable anyone who didn't have one of he dozens of suitable types to get one for free, upon request from their local council. If that's the case, then there's no problem at all.
Of course there is a problem. You are completely tone deaf on this.
Voting should be easy – a fundamental human right – it should not involve jumping through various bureaucratic hoops set by some governmental shill in Whitehall and fully endorsed by 'Morris Dancer'.
People who are against ID cards as basic freedom are now mysteriously in favour of compulsory ID at moments when it favours them electorally. Hmmm.
Funny. Old. World.
My initial reaction to this was 'well, yes it does favour them electorally to have fewer fraudulent votes for the other party'. Labour tend to take a frustratingly relaxed view of electoral fraud because it benefits them. (I remember when all-postal votes were introduced for the 2002 (or thereabouts) European elections someone from Labour (Peter Hain, or someone like him) declaring that increased electoral fraud was an acceptable price to pay for increased turnout.)
But I do see your point as well.
Both sides here see themselves as morally in the right, and have a reasonably good case in doing so.
That is quite a contention.
My understanding is that fraud is at such a low level in this country that the voting ID is a solution looking for a problem.
It is also partisan bollocks because usually it is Labour that are the victims of voter fraud, as in Tower Hamlets, for instance.
No booze or sex outside heterosexual marriage allowed in Qatar, so only the most Puritan football fans allowed
How do they feel about massive amounts of cocaine and fireworks up the arse? Part of me is hoping England fans still manage to disgrace themselves even in the face of utter Qatari joylessness. Something to be obscurely proud of.
It's a very old-fashioned view. England fans have been over-exuberant pussy cats rather than lions for decades now.
I think the French fans are considered the hardcore element these days. Famously smashed up Paris immediately after winning the World Cup.
Growing consensus that Lord Frosty’s Brexit deal was great for the EU and terrible for UK to the point that EU wont want to give up the advantages ceded to them…but still he pontificates vaguely about ‘change’. What chutzpah.. https://twitter.com/davidghfrost/status/1593358672402546689
Its now clearer than ever that UK was least equipped to leave EU of any member..low productivity, low skilled economy dependent on single market on many fronts including free movement.. and the N Ireland conundrum for which there’s no solution except a united Ireland. What a mess https://twitter.com/steverichards14/status/1593560581591560192
I see that even Leon is now saying that Brexit was sub-optimal. We are where we are and all that, but the Brexit utopians - Boris, Farage, Hannon etc. - really deserve nothing but exile from the public sphere.
"even Leon" ?
Leon has hyperventilated between Brexit being the best thing since sliced bread and a disaster since before the referendum.
Fans will not be allowed to buy alcohol around World Cup stadiums, Sky News understands.
The U-turn comes ahead of the tournament's opening game in Qatar on Sunday.
LOL. Your turn FIFA - postpone the first match?
Sequels are rarely better than the original, but the sequel to Fyre Festival is really shaping up to be a humdinger.
I was going to say that Qatar could use the World Cup to announce themselves to the world, welcome everyone with open arms, and have their own massive Glastonbury Festival in the desert - much as I’ve witnessed from the UAE in the past couple of decades.
But instead, it looks like the mullahs are still in charge, and we’ll be instead watching the Fyre Festival.
I was wined and dined by a Qatari firm in London back in 2017 about a job opportunity. Spectacular pay, and the lifestyle presented was extraordinarily appealing - hard work, but a stunning home, exquisite hotel bars, and a job where my skills would be really valued.
I was all ready to sign on the dotted line, then the UAE diplomatic crisis kicked off, the Qatari stock market crashed and the job offer fell through. I would have signed in a heartbeat back in 2017 - but knowing what I know now, I wouldn't go out there for double the money.
This is a PR disaster for Qatar, and it hasn't even started yet.
That little diplomatic spat caused huge problems for Qatar. Many of the expats working there were employed by UAE companies, because no-one wanted to be on a Qatari visa where your employer basically owns you, and the wives wanted to live in Dubai. That stopped overnight, with thousands of contractors being withdrawn, and construction sites suspended for over a year. The World Cup sites eventually got going again, with massive wages having to be paid to the senior contractors. Thousands of construction managers will now be enjoying retirement in their 40s, having built the WC stadia and hotels.
Yup. The money they were offering to move out there was spectacular - retirement in a decade kind of money.
One red flag, however, was when I was searching on Qatari real estate websites for a place to live. I put in my price bracket (massive, obvs) but in amongst the glittering penthouses were several uh... other properties in the same price bracket. Turns out for the same amount of money pcm, I could rent a bunkhouse fitting up to 40 "workers". Pictures were included. Slave galleys sprung to mind.
Sometimes I wonder why it's all so visible - then I realise - it's because they genuinely don't see anything wrong with this kind of socioeconomic model.
And that is why the world cup is going to be such a disaster. Most tinpot countries build potemkin villages because they *know* how to present themselves to the outside world. Qatar presents itself as it is, and is proud of what it is.
Chaos will ensue.
Yes, it's quite striking the way - even with the eyes of the world upon them - they aren't covering up behaviour which the rest of the world might disapprove of. My inference is that they are so disconnected from the outside world that they absolutely don't see why the rest of the world might look askance at this. See also the goons stopping the Danish TV crew from filming.
People bang on about woke.
But here is a real difference - in many countries, there isn't a narrative of "our evil ancestors did X". They are in the Ra Ra We Are The Bestest mode. They see nothing in their past or present to be ashamed of.
In addition, since they have nothing to be ashamed of, their culture and religion is, of course, The Best In The World. Meaning that everyone else is somewhere between a poor, benighted, uncultured rube and an actual Heretic.
Morning all! Somewhat weirdly, I have just had a proxy vote in a local council election. I say somewhat weirdly, because all we had to do was my wife contact the local council and say I was in hospital. I didn’t I didn’t have to say or sign anything!
The applicant does have to sign. If she commited an offence signing for you you, best keep quiet
“Tax burden unlikely to go back to pre-Covid levels in 'next few decades' We’re in a “new era” of higher taxation and higher spending as a fraction of national income as a bigger state.”
“The British people “just got a lot poorer”, a leading thinktank has warned, after a series of “economic own goals” that have made a recovery much harder than it might have been.
In his verdict on the chancellor’s autumn statement, Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), said the government was “reaping the costs of a long-term failure to grow the economy”, along with an ageing population and high levels of historic borrowing.”
A vicious cycle. Tax people more, people spend less, the economy contracts, people leave if they can, tax revenue falls, taxes need to rise to cover the shortfall, people spend even less, etc, etc...
Yes. Exactly. It’s how New York City went bust in the 1970s
Britain is about to become the South Bronx in 1978. It’s time to move to LA
“Tax burden unlikely to go back to pre-Covid levels in 'next few decades' We’re in a “new era” of higher taxation and higher spending as a fraction of national income as a bigger state.”
“The British people “just got a lot poorer”, a leading thinktank has warned, after a series of “economic own goals” that have made a recovery much harder than it might have been.
In his verdict on the chancellor’s autumn statement, Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), said the government was “reaping the costs of a long-term failure to grow the economy”, along with an ageing population and high levels of historic borrowing.”
We've been spending more than we've been raising since 2001. We've just been putting off the moment of reckoning. We've been getting poorer, we just haven't adjusted our lifestyles accordingly yet.
I can't remember if this is the current proposal/state of affairs, but the pilot for voter ID did enable anyone who didn't have one of he dozens of suitable types to get one for free, upon request from their local council. If that's the case, then there's no problem at all.
Of course there is a problem. You are completely tone deaf on this.
Voting should be easy – a fundamental human right – it should not involve jumping through various bureaucratic hoops set by some governmental shill in Whitehall and fully endorsed by 'Morris Dancer'.
"various bureaucratic hoops" like proving you have the right to vote?
I sometimes think that I am at odds with others on this, but freely provided IDs for those not able to prove ID in a myriad of other ways does not seem like voter suppression to me. I think seeing some of the issues around background requirements in US, or lack of voting stations, or frankly the making up of voting results in places like Russia seems to be much more of an inherent issue in the system rather than proving you are who you say you are.
Mr. Jonathan, I also think passports should exist.
Do you think it's unreasonable to have any form of ID? Supporting that and not supporting mandatory ID cards and the attached monstrosity of a database is entirely consistent.
Attacking someone for not being in favour of ID cards but (assuming it's akin to the pilot) backing the use of one of any of dozens of ID, including one that's free upon request, is not necessarily compelling as arguments go.
Voting should be as easy as possible. It's important.
Mr. Jonathan, a secure voting system is also important. If there's a broad range of accepted IDs, and a free election-specific form that can be accessed for free, upon request, that is not some sort of onerous obstacle.
On topic there is actually some logic behind as was explained last night. Obtaining the 60+ Oyster is dependent on providing other proof of identification - thus it is a proxy ID. There is no such requirement for the 18+ card, so it is not suitable.
Of course it can and will be spun as an attempt to stop younger voters, Having read the debate last night I now think it is cack-handed but not malicious.
I have always said that ID should only be needed to vote if you do not bring your Polling Card. Job done.
I am absolutely certain the intention is to make it more difficult for younger people to vote than older people. Even if the project started as an attempt to address a real perceived problem (already doubtful), now it is known to create big biases it would be dropped as unworkable, unless the intention is precisely to take advantage of those biases.
Surely the solution is that you need ID to get an oyster 18+ card and can use it for ID purposes - simple
Perhaps, but that wouldn't be in the control of central government.
Mr. Jonathan, I also think passports should exist.
Do you think it's unreasonable to have any form of ID? Supporting that and not supporting mandatory ID cards and the attached monstrosity of a database is entirely consistent.
Attacking someone for not being in favour of ID cards but (assuming it's akin to the pilot) backing the use of one of any of dozens of ID, including one that's free upon request, is not necessarily compelling as arguments go.
Voting should be as easy as possible. It's important.
Even for people who aren't eligible?
All of the 8 billion @SeanT's should be allowed to vote.
Mr. Jonathan, I also think passports should exist.
Do you think it's unreasonable to have any form of ID? Supporting that and not supporting mandatory ID cards and the attached monstrosity of a database is entirely consistent.
Attacking someone for not being in favour of ID cards but (assuming it's akin to the pilot) backing the use of one of any of dozens of ID, including one that's free upon request, is not necessarily compelling as arguments go.
Voting should be as easy as possible. It's important.
Even for people who aren't eligible?
All of the 8 billion @SeanT's should be allowed to vote.
On Topic - I remember when we were having a discussion about voting irregularities on PB. Many people took the line that this didn't happen
Literally while the discussion was happening, the news of the case (in Birmingham IIRC) where several councillor were arrested while supervising a literal vote forging factory came in.
The line then changed to "of course local elections are corrupt, we were talking about *national* elections"
Given the experience of a friend who tried to report his vote stolen in Tower Hamlets (for a national election, among others), I wonder how much suppression of reporting of voting irregularities is going on.
Incidentally, the changes bring the rest of the UK into line with NI.
The problem with voter fraud is that it is not like financial fraud where you may notice your finances being depleted. So detection of voter fraud requires the person being defrauded to be informed and aware. I definitely know of a case of voter fraud that was undetected, and I am sure others will also be aware. That is not to say that it is a bit problem but am fundamentally disagree with the measure Mike has used repeatedly, which is detected cases. That for me is a tip of the iceberg kind of measure - who know the size of the problem below the water.
By the same token if you brought in ID requirements you wouldn't know how many people have now not voted who otherwise would. And that's important. This isn't a "better 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man is convicted" situation. Voting is to be encouraged and if you're going to do anything which makes it harder you really ought to be able to demonstrate there's a significant problem.
Fans will not be allowed to buy alcohol around World Cup stadiums, Sky News understands.
The U-turn comes ahead of the tournament's opening game in Qatar on Sunday.
LOL. Your turn FIFA - postpone the first match?
Sequels are rarely better than the original, but the sequel to Fyre Festival is really shaping up to be a humdinger.
I was going to say that Qatar could use the World Cup to announce themselves to the world, welcome everyone with open arms, and have their own massive Glastonbury Festival in the desert - much as I’ve witnessed from the UAE in the past couple of decades.
But instead, it looks like the mullahs are still in charge, and we’ll be instead watching the Fyre Festival.
I was wined and dined by a Qatari firm in London back in 2017 about a job opportunity. Spectacular pay, and the lifestyle presented was extraordinarily appealing - hard work, but a stunning home, exquisite hotel bars, and a job where my skills would be really valued.
I was all ready to sign on the dotted line, then the UAE diplomatic crisis kicked off, the Qatari stock market crashed and the job offer fell through. I would have signed in a heartbeat back in 2017 - but knowing what I know now, I wouldn't go out there for double the money.
This is a PR disaster for Qatar, and it hasn't even started yet.
That little diplomatic spat caused huge problems for Qatar. Many of the expats working there were employed by UAE companies, because no-one wanted to be on a Qatari visa where your employer basically owns you, and the wives wanted to live in Dubai. That stopped overnight, with thousands of contractors being withdrawn, and construction sites suspended for over a year. The World Cup sites eventually got going again, with massive wages having to be paid to the senior contractors. Thousands of construction managers will now be enjoying retirement in their 40s, having built the WC stadia and hotels.
Yup. The money they were offering to move out there was spectacular - retirement in a decade kind of money.
One red flag, however, was when I was searching on Qatari real estate websites for a place to live. I put in my price bracket (massive, obvs) but in amongst the glittering penthouses were several uh... other properties in the same price bracket. Turns out for the same amount of money pcm, I could rent a bunkhouse fitting up to 40 "workers". Pictures were included. Slave galleys sprung to mind.
Sometimes I wonder why it's all so visible - then I realise - it's because they genuinely don't see anything wrong with this kind of socioeconomic model.
And that is why the world cup is going to be such a disaster. Most tinpot countries build potemkin villages because they *know* how to present themselves to the outside world. Qatar presents itself as it is, and is proud of what it is.
Chaos will ensue.
The other point is ‘rent’ - it’s difficult to buy property there if you’re not Qatari or at least GCC national.
I’m actually quite pragmatic when it comes to worker accommodation, having seen what the slums of Pakistan and Bangladesh look like. And having seen what the slums of Slough look like, where a 3-bed house is regularly cleared out with 20 or more people living there.
A fair point, that. We, and other countries, are just as bad for it.
The difference is that we don't advertise "beds in sheds" on rightmove.com side by side prime London property, because we know it's not something to be proud of. In Qatar, I found it was just all out in the open.
As you say, we are just as bad for it. There is an argument to be said that we're the hypocrites, at least the Qataris are being honest about it.
What price Roger's £1 coffee in Pret?
I think it was @rcs1000 who pointed out that the price of a coffee in a cafe in Switzerland is directly linked to their protected labour market.
“Tax burden unlikely to go back to pre-Covid levels in 'next few decades' We’re in a “new era” of higher taxation and higher spending as a fraction of national income as a bigger state.”
“The British people “just got a lot poorer”, a leading thinktank has warned, after a series of “economic own goals” that have made a recovery much harder than it might have been.
In his verdict on the chancellor’s autumn statement, Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), said the government was “reaping the costs of a long-term failure to grow the economy”, along with an ageing population and high levels of historic borrowing.”
A vicious cycle. Tax people more, people spend less, the economy contracts, people leave if they can, tax revenue falls, taxes need to rise to cover the shortfall, people spend even less, etc, etc...
Taxes are much higher in Scandinavia, France, even Germany. But public and private investment is also higher, education and skills are much higher, and they didn't have Thatcherism.
Top income tax rate in France and Germany is the same as the UK ie 45%. Top income tax rate in Norway is actually lower at 38%.
Before Thatcherism the UK was strike ridden, filled with inefficient nationalised industry and with a gdp per capital below the EEC average
On Topic - I remember when we were having a discussion about voting irregularities on PB. Many people took the line that this didn't happen
Literally while the discussion was happening, the news of the case (in Birmingham IIRC) where several councillor were arrested while supervising a literal vote forging factory came in.
The line then changed to "of course local elections are corrupt, we were talking about *national* elections"
Given the experience of a friend who tried to report his vote stolen in Tower Hamlets (for a national election, among others), I wonder how much suppression of reporting of voting irregularities is going on.
Incidentally, the changes bring the rest of the UK into line with NI.
The problem with voter fraud is that it is not like financial fraud where you may notice your finances being depleted. So detection of voter fraud requires the person being defrauded to be informed and aware. I definitely know of a case of voter fraud that was undetected, and I am sure others will also be aware. That is not to say that it is a bit problem but am fundamentally disagree with the measure Mike has used repeatedly, which is detected cases. That for me is a tip of the iceberg kind of measure - who know the size of the problem below the water.
Was the voting fraud by postal vote or by impersonation at a polling station?
My money would be on the latter being much lower than the first, yet it is in person voting being targeted.
Mr. Jonathan, a secure voting system is also important. If there's a broad range of accepted IDs, and a free election-specific form that can be accessed for free, upon request, that is not some sort of onerous obstacle.
Though part of the powerful magic of voting is that everyone is equal, one vote each and we all queue up the same.
If young people can be expected to apply for a voter ID from the town hall, so can everyone else.
The logic is easy to justify and/or explain, actually. The requirements for getting the two cards are very different. One requires you submitting proof of your identity, the other does not.
In any case, adding the 60+ Oyster card has no material effect on the number of people who have a valid form of ID. Since 100% of people with a 60+ Oyster card will have used their passport, another form of valid ID, to get it.
On Topic - I remember when we were having a discussion about voting irregularities on PB. Many people took the line that this didn't happen
Literally while the discussion was happening, the news of the case (in Birmingham IIRC) where several councillor were arrested while supervising a literal vote forging factory came in.
The line then changed to "of course local elections are corrupt, we were talking about *national* elections"
Given the experience of a friend who tried to report his vote stolen in Tower Hamlets (for a national election, among others), I wonder how much suppression of reporting of voting irregularities is going on.
Incidentally, the changes bring the rest of the UK into line with NI.
The problem with voter fraud is that it is not like financial fraud where you may notice your finances being depleted. So detection of voter fraud requires the person being defrauded to be informed and aware. I definitely know of a case of voter fraud that was undetected, and I am sure others will also be aware. That is not to say that it is a bit problem but am fundamentally disagree with the measure Mike has used repeatedly, which is detected cases. That for me is a tip of the iceberg kind of measure - who know the size of the problem below the water.
Was the voting fraud by postal vote or by impersonation at a polling station?
My money would be on the latter being much lower than the first, yet it is in person voting being targeted.
My friend had his polling card diverted to a different address.
I wonder how many people, if they vote in person, and the polling card doesn't show up, shrug and get on with the rest of life?
On Topic - I remember when we were having a discussion about voting irregularities on PB. Many people took the line that this didn't happen
Literally while the discussion was happening, the news of the case (in Birmingham IIRC) where several councillor were arrested while supervising a literal vote forging factory came in.
The line then changed to "of course local elections are corrupt, we were talking about *national* elections"
Given the experience of a friend who tried to report his vote stolen in Tower Hamlets (for a national election, among others), I wonder how much suppression of reporting of voting irregularities is going on.
Incidentally, the changes bring the rest of the UK into line with NI.
The problem with voter fraud is that it is not like financial fraud where you may notice your finances being depleted. So detection of voter fraud requires the person being defrauded to be informed and aware. I definitely know of a case of voter fraud that was undetected, and I am sure others will also be aware. That is not to say that it is a bit problem but am fundamentally disagree with the measure Mike has used repeatedly, which is detected cases. That for me is a tip of the iceberg kind of measure - who know the size of the problem below the water.
Because one person doing it would probably get away with it, but since one or two votes is unlikely to change anything, there's no real incentive to bother. To make a difference to a result means organising a whole batch of people, any one of whom could drop you right in it. The penalty would be big and the paltry upside doesn't make the risk worthwhile.
So in reality the problem is tiny, and irrelevant - certainly when we have a voting system that casts millions of people's votes straight into the bin.
“Tax burden unlikely to go back to pre-Covid levels in 'next few decades' We’re in a “new era” of higher taxation and higher spending as a fraction of national income as a bigger state.”
“The British people “just got a lot poorer”, a leading thinktank has warned, after a series of “economic own goals” that have made a recovery much harder than it might have been.
In his verdict on the chancellor’s autumn statement, Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), said the government was “reaping the costs of a long-term failure to grow the economy”, along with an ageing population and high levels of historic borrowing.”
A vicious cycle. Tax people more, people spend less, the economy contracts, people leave if they can, tax revenue falls, taxes need to rise to cover the shortfall, people spend even less, etc, etc...
Taxes are much higher in Scandinavia, France, even Germany. But public and private investment is also higher, education and skills are much higher, and they didn't have Thatcherism.
Top income tax rate in France and Germany is the same as the UK ie 45%. Top income tax rate in Norway is actually lower at 38%.
Before Thatcherism the UK was strike ridden, filled with inefficient nationalised industry and with a gdp per capital below the EEC average
At 35% though, it's lower than the Scandinavian level. Top income tax rates are only a part of the picture.
“Tax burden unlikely to go back to pre-Covid levels in 'next few decades' We’re in a “new era” of higher taxation and higher spending as a fraction of national income as a bigger state.”
“The British people “just got a lot poorer”, a leading thinktank has warned, after a series of “economic own goals” that have made a recovery much harder than it might have been.
In his verdict on the chancellor’s autumn statement, Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), said the government was “reaping the costs of a long-term failure to grow the economy”, along with an ageing population and high levels of historic borrowing.”
A vicious cycle. Tax people more, people spend less, the economy contracts, people leave if they can, tax revenue falls, taxes need to rise to cover the shortfall, people spend even less, etc, etc...
Yes. Exactly. It’s how New York City went bust in the 1970s
Britain is about to become the South Bronx in 1978. It’s time to move to LA
Looks like you have little faith in Brexit Britain, run by the party of Brexit. I take it that you will not be voting for them.
Mr. Romford, there were, in the pilot, literally dozens of acceptable forms of ID, including driving licences and passports, so most people would have them already.
The portrayal of this as being something that 'the young' inherently do not have and will struggle to acquire is nonsense. Most will have a valid type of ID already and acquiring one if not will be free of charge. This is neither difficult nor costly.
It's basically the same trick as they played with individual electoral registration.
Come up with a new system which is going to have little impact on older voters but will just happen to disenfranchise many younger voters unless they really get their finger out to avoid their vote being suppressed. But many won't until its too late.
Then it worked a treat for Cameron (in 2015) because older people didn't move around a lot, in contrast to younger people, so pensioners were pretty well all transferred automatically onto the new electoral roll with little difficulty but young people weren't. Areas of poorer private rented accommodation and ethnic minority populations saw the most problems. It probably did personally for Cameron, as the problem was still there in 2016 at the Brexit referendum after which he went.
Now something similar is going to apply to when you actually go to the polling station.
The way things are going, voter suppression in the UK is going to reach levels unseen outside of a few US states.
I think that this is a somewhat hyperbolic response. I have had 2 kids come on to the electoral roll in the last few years. One happened fairly automatically through her school. The other didn't bother himself and was pursued surprisingly enthusiastically by the local Electoral Officer until he finally completed the necessary paperwork. My understanding is that most schools facilitate at least the first entry on the rolls.
Of course it is true that younger people move around more and have more temporary addresses as they look to get going in their careers or their studies. It is inevitable that more of them will fall through the cracks once they have left home. Efforts should be made to encourage them to take this seriously and to be registered. But I do not see anything in this country that comes within a million miles of the US systems which can prevent those with a conviction from voting (when convicts for lots of social reasons and naked racism are preponderately black) in the UK, and that is a good thing.
Now now don't you realise young people are literally going to die because they can't be arsed to sort out ID because THAT's why none of them ever bother to vote. Hyperbole shmyperbole! PB increasingly resembles the Kay Burley crowd screaming at politicians in Downing street and all because the UK is pretty much in the same boat as virtually every other western economy right now. Watched from afar it's hilarious.
On Topic - I remember when we were having a discussion about voting irregularities on PB. Many people took the line that this didn't happen
Literally while the discussion was happening, the news of the case (in Birmingham IIRC) where several councillor were arrested while supervising a literal vote forging factory came in.
The line then changed to "of course local elections are corrupt, we were talking about *national* elections"
Given the experience of a friend who tried to report his vote stolen in Tower Hamlets (for a national election, among others), I wonder how much suppression of reporting of voting irregularities is going on.
Incidentally, the changes bring the rest of the UK into line with NI.
The problem with voter fraud is that it is not like financial fraud where you may notice your finances being depleted. So detection of voter fraud requires the person being defrauded to be informed and aware. I definitely know of a case of voter fraud that was undetected, and I am sure others will also be aware. That is not to say that it is a bit problem but am fundamentally disagree with the measure Mike has used repeatedly, which is detected cases. That for me is a tip of the iceberg kind of measure - who know the size of the problem below the water.
Personation (in-person voter fraud) is easy to detect. You turn up at the polling station and are told you have already voted. Fraud detected. Or you voted early, and later on your imposter turns up and is told he has already voted. Fraud detected.
The number of votes you'd need to swing to affect the result in most constituencies means it is not even worth bothering, so no-one bothers which is why next to no fraud is detected.
Postal votes and proxies, on the other hand, are open to fraud, and other recent worrying developments are allowing pressure and selfies inside polling stations, about which the government seems strangely unconcerned.
I agree postal and proxy voting are more likely to lead to voter fraud, but I know that there has also been a problem with addresses being reocrded. When I was at Uni I got polling card then but then I went home and found I had had one there also. I have a twin who could have used that vote, and therefore I could have voted in two places. When he was at Uni he lived close to our home address and could have voted at Uni and at home on the same day. If you had to prove with ID it was definitely you voting then at least you could be held to account in future.
Most of our problems come from multiple failures accruing over two decades - nothing to do with Brexit. And also global events have created horrible headwinds
So what do we do? What can we do? We must have done something wrong and we need to reverse it. Brexit is the problem! Reverse Brexit!
Brexit will get the blame for everything. Unfairly. But it’s a nice irony as the EU got the blame for everything preBrexit
No booze or sex outside heterosexual marriage allowed in Qatar, so only the most Puritan football fans allowed
How do they feel about massive amounts of cocaine and fireworks up the arse? Part of me is hoping England fans still manage to disgrace themselves even in the face of utter Qatari joylessness. Something to be obscurely proud of.
It's a very old-fashioned view. England fans have been over-exuberant pussy cats rather than lions for decades now.
I know they aren't perhaps in the same league as, say, the Russians for violence. But there can be few in the league of the England fans for sheer exuberant dickishness.
When I was in Russia for the World Cup there were fans from all countries about, many from teams that were no longer in the tournament, but the only obnoxious behaviour that I saw was from some England fans being drunk and obnoxious in a bar, but it was hardly anything really.
Fans will not be allowed to buy alcohol around World Cup stadiums, Sky News understands.
The U-turn comes ahead of the tournament's opening game in Qatar on Sunday.
LOL. Your turn FIFA - postpone the first match?
Sequels are rarely better than the original, but the sequel to Fyre Festival is really shaping up to be a humdinger.
I was going to say that Qatar could use the World Cup to announce themselves to the world, welcome everyone with open arms, and have their own massive Glastonbury Festival in the desert - much as I’ve witnessed from the UAE in the past couple of decades.
But instead, it looks like the mullahs are still in charge, and we’ll be instead watching the Fyre Festival.
I was wined and dined by a Qatari firm in London back in 2017 about a job opportunity. Spectacular pay, and the lifestyle presented was extraordinarily appealing - hard work, but a stunning home, exquisite hotel bars, and a job where my skills would be really valued.
I was all ready to sign on the dotted line, then the UAE diplomatic crisis kicked off, the Qatari stock market crashed and the job offer fell through. I would have signed in a heartbeat back in 2017 - but knowing what I know now, I wouldn't go out there for double the money.
This is a PR disaster for Qatar, and it hasn't even started yet.
That little diplomatic spat caused huge problems for Qatar. Many of the expats working there were employed by UAE companies, because no-one wanted to be on a Qatari visa where your employer basically owns you, and the wives wanted to live in Dubai. That stopped overnight, with thousands of contractors being withdrawn, and construction sites suspended for over a year. The World Cup sites eventually got going again, with massive wages having to be paid to the senior contractors. Thousands of construction managers will now be enjoying retirement in their 40s, having built the WC stadia and hotels.
Yup. The money they were offering to move out there was spectacular - retirement in a decade kind of money.
One red flag, however, was when I was searching on Qatari real estate websites for a place to live. I put in my price bracket (massive, obvs) but in amongst the glittering penthouses were several uh... other properties in the same price bracket. Turns out for the same amount of money pcm, I could rent a bunkhouse fitting up to 40 "workers". Pictures were included. Slave galleys sprung to mind.
Sometimes I wonder why it's all so visible - then I realise - it's because they genuinely don't see anything wrong with this kind of socioeconomic model.
And that is why the world cup is going to be such a disaster. Most tinpot countries build potemkin villages because they *know* how to present themselves to the outside world. Qatar presents itself as it is, and is proud of what it is.
Chaos will ensue.
Yes, it's quite striking the way - even with the eyes of the world upon them - they aren't covering up behaviour which the rest of the world might disapprove of. My inference is that they are so disconnected from the outside world that they absolutely don't see why the rest of the world might look askance at this. See also the goons stopping the Danish TV crew from filming.
People bang on about woke.
But here is a real difference - in many countries, there isn't a narrative of "our evil ancestors did X". They are in the Ra Ra We Are The Bestest mode. They see nothing in their past or present to be ashamed of.
In addition, since they have nothing to be ashamed of, their culture and religion is, of course, The Best In The World. Meaning that everyone else is somewhere between a poor, benighted, uncultured rube and an actual Heretic.
Having been the best in the world at colonialism we are now the best in the world at admitting it was wrong? That's a nice thought but I'm not sure it's true. Not the 2nd bit anyway.
Its now clearer than ever that UK was least equipped to leave EU of any member..low productivity, low skilled economy dependent on single market on many fronts including free movement.. and the N Ireland conundrum for which there’s no solution except a united Ireland. What a mess https://twitter.com/steverichards14/status/1593560581591560192
I see that even Leon is now saying that Brexit was sub-optimal. We are where we are and all that, but the Brexit utopians - Boris, Farage, Hannon etc. - really deserve nothing but exile from the public sphere.
"even Leon" ?
Leon has hyperventilated between Brexit being the best thing since sliced bread and a disaster since before the referendum.
As ever he tries to cover all the bases. But we all remember how he voted...
On topic there is actually some logic behind as was explained last night. Obtaining the 60+ Oyster is dependent on providing other proof of identification - thus it is a proxy ID. There is no such requirement for the 18+ card, so it is not suitable.
Of course it can and will be spun as an attempt to stop younger voters, Having read the debate last night I now think it is cack-handed but not malicious.
I have always said that ID should only be needed to vote if you do not bring your Polling Card. Job done.
I am absolutely certain the intention is to make it more difficult for younger people to vote than older people. Even if the project started as an attempt to address a real perceived problem (already doubtful), now it is known to create big biases it would be dropped as unworkable, unless the intention is precisely to take advantage of those biases.
Surely the solution is that you need ID to get an oyster 18+ card and can use it for ID purposes - simple
You would be requiring certain demographics to get ID, involving a fair degree of hassle, specifically to vote, when other demographics have deemed adequate ID already.
In principle I am not opposed to an ID requirement for voting, for example if everyone must have government issued ID, as is the case in many countries. I am in favour of any measure that make voting easier if it comes with an acceptable risk. This proposal does the opposite. I am opposed to discriminatory measures, as in this case.
If we must do something on photo ID (and I don’t think we must) then print a photo on polling cards. Submit a photo when you register, and that becomes a single use photo ID you take with you. Make arrangements to reprint on the day if necessary.
On Topic - I remember when we were having a discussion about voting irregularities on PB. Many people took the line that this didn't happen
Literally while the discussion was happening, the news of the case (in Birmingham IIRC) where several councillor were arrested while supervising a literal vote forging factory came in.
The line then changed to "of course local elections are corrupt, we were talking about *national* elections"
Given the experience of a friend who tried to report his vote stolen in Tower Hamlets (for a national election, among others), I wonder how much suppression of reporting of voting irregularities is going on.
Incidentally, the changes bring the rest of the UK into line with NI.
The problem with voter fraud is that it is not like financial fraud where you may notice your finances being depleted. So detection of voter fraud requires the person being defrauded to be informed and aware. I definitely know of a case of voter fraud that was undetected, and I am sure others will also be aware. That is not to say that it is a bit problem but am fundamentally disagree with the measure Mike has used repeatedly, which is detected cases. That for me is a tip of the iceberg kind of measure - who know the size of the problem below the water.
Personation (in-person voter fraud) is easy to detect. You turn up at the polling station and are told you have already voted. Fraud detected. Or you voted early, and later on your imposter turns up and is told he has already voted. Fraud detected.
The number of votes you'd need to swing to affect the result in most constituencies means it is not even worth bothering, so no-one bothers which is why next to no fraud is detected.
Postal votes and proxies, on the other hand, are open to fraud, and other recent worrying developments are allowing pressure and selfies inside polling stations, about which the government seems strangely unconcerned.
I guess if you were making a determined attempt to do personation the trick would be to find people who habitually don't vote.
It seems kind of weird to me that the marked register showing this information is available, but only to people who pay for it. The security case would be for either not showing it to anyone, to make this kind of attack harder, or to make it widely available, so that people could tell if someone had voted on their or their neighbour's behalf.
Another thing you might do if you were genuinely worried about it would be to send the *voter* that information about themselves, so they could blow the whistle if there were votes being cast in their name. You could include the voter's previous voting record along with their polling card in the next election.
Mr. Romford, there were, in the pilot, literally dozens of acceptable forms of ID, including driving licences and passports, so most people would have them already.
The portrayal of this as being something that 'the young' inherently do not have and will struggle to acquire is nonsense. Most will have a valid type of ID already and acquiring one if not will be free of charge. This is neither difficult nor costly.
“Tax burden unlikely to go back to pre-Covid levels in 'next few decades' We’re in a “new era” of higher taxation and higher spending as a fraction of national income as a bigger state.”
“The British people “just got a lot poorer”, a leading thinktank has warned, after a series of “economic own goals” that have made a recovery much harder than it might have been.
In his verdict on the chancellor’s autumn statement, Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), said the government was “reaping the costs of a long-term failure to grow the economy”, along with an ageing population and high levels of historic borrowing.”
A vicious cycle. Tax people more, people spend less, the economy contracts, people leave if they can, tax revenue falls, taxes need to rise to cover the shortfall, people spend even less, etc, etc...
Yes. Exactly. It’s how New York City went bust in the 1970s
Britain is about to become the South Bronx in 1978. It’s time to move to LA
Looks like you have little faith in Brexit Britain, run by the party of Brexit. I take it that you will not be voting for them.
Fans will not be allowed to buy alcohol around World Cup stadiums, Sky News understands.
The U-turn comes ahead of the tournament's opening game in Qatar on Sunday.
LOL. Your turn FIFA - postpone the first match?
Sequels are rarely better than the original, but the sequel to Fyre Festival is really shaping up to be a humdinger.
I was going to say that Qatar could use the World Cup to announce themselves to the world, welcome everyone with open arms, and have their own massive Glastonbury Festival in the desert - much as I’ve witnessed from the UAE in the past couple of decades.
But instead, it looks like the mullahs are still in charge, and we’ll be instead watching the Fyre Festival.
I was wined and dined by a Qatari firm in London back in 2017 about a job opportunity. Spectacular pay, and the lifestyle presented was extraordinarily appealing - hard work, but a stunning home, exquisite hotel bars, and a job where my skills would be really valued.
I was all ready to sign on the dotted line, then the UAE diplomatic crisis kicked off, the Qatari stock market crashed and the job offer fell through. I would have signed in a heartbeat back in 2017 - but knowing what I know now, I wouldn't go out there for double the money.
This is a PR disaster for Qatar, and it hasn't even started yet.
That little diplomatic spat caused huge problems for Qatar. Many of the expats working there were employed by UAE companies, because no-one wanted to be on a Qatari visa where your employer basically owns you, and the wives wanted to live in Dubai. That stopped overnight, with thousands of contractors being withdrawn, and construction sites suspended for over a year. The World Cup sites eventually got going again, with massive wages having to be paid to the senior contractors. Thousands of construction managers will now be enjoying retirement in their 40s, having built the WC stadia and hotels.
Yup. The money they were offering to move out there was spectacular - retirement in a decade kind of money.
One red flag, however, was when I was searching on Qatari real estate websites for a place to live. I put in my price bracket (massive, obvs) but in amongst the glittering penthouses were several uh... other properties in the same price bracket. Turns out for the same amount of money pcm, I could rent a bunkhouse fitting up to 40 "workers". Pictures were included. Slave galleys sprung to mind.
Sometimes I wonder why it's all so visible - then I realise - it's because they genuinely don't see anything wrong with this kind of socioeconomic model.
And that is why the world cup is going to be such a disaster. Most tinpot countries build potemkin villages because they *know* how to present themselves to the outside world. Qatar presents itself as it is, and is proud of what it is.
Chaos will ensue.
Yes, it's quite striking the way - even with the eyes of the world upon them - they aren't covering up behaviour which the rest of the world might disapprove of. My inference is that they are so disconnected from the outside world that they absolutely don't see why the rest of the world might look askance at this. See also the goons stopping the Danish TV crew from filming.
People bang on about woke.
But here is a real difference - in many countries, there isn't a narrative of "our evil ancestors did X". They are in the Ra Ra We Are The Bestest mode. They see nothing in their past or present to be ashamed of.
In addition, since they have nothing to be ashamed of, their culture and religion is, of course, The Best In The World. Meaning that everyone else is somewhere between a poor, benighted, uncultured rube and an actual Heretic.
Having been the best in the world at colonialism we are now the best in the world at admitting it was wrong? That's a nice thought but I'm not sure it's true. Not the 2nd bit anyway.
It's not about being best at admitting the past. Even acknowledging it is a start.
Haven't you actually listened to some locals when you've travelled?
It is quite interesting to hear people from cultures where They Have No Doubt. And they see The Doubt in the West as pathetic and evidence of our manifest decline. Rather than a mature response to the past.
What a truck looks like after it has been nearby a HIMARs missile loaded with tungsten balls. From a distance it looks fine but the entirety of it is full of small holes and unusable.
On Topic - I remember when we were having a discussion about voting irregularities on PB. Many people took the line that this didn't happen
Literally while the discussion was happening, the news of the case (in Birmingham IIRC) where several councillor were arrested while supervising a literal vote forging factory came in.
The line then changed to "of course local elections are corrupt, we were talking about *national* elections"
Given the experience of a friend who tried to report his vote stolen in Tower Hamlets (for a national election, among others), I wonder how much suppression of reporting of voting irregularities is going on.
Incidentally, the changes bring the rest of the UK into line with NI.
The problem with voter fraud is that it is not like financial fraud where you may notice your finances being depleted. So detection of voter fraud requires the person being defrauded to be informed and aware. I definitely know of a case of voter fraud that was undetected, and I am sure others will also be aware. That is not to say that it is a bit problem but am fundamentally disagree with the measure Mike has used repeatedly, which is detected cases. That for me is a tip of the iceberg kind of measure - who know the size of the problem below the water.
Personation (in-person voter fraud) is easy to detect. You turn up at the polling station and are told you have already voted. Fraud detected. Or you voted early, and later on your imposter turns up and is told he has already voted. Fraud detected.
The number of votes you'd need to swing to affect the result in most constituencies means it is not even worth bothering, so no-one bothers which is why next to no fraud is detected.
Postal votes and proxies, on the other hand, are open to fraud, and other recent worrying developments are allowing pressure and selfies inside polling stations, about which the government seems strangely unconcerned.
I agree postal and proxy voting are more likely to lead to voter fraud, but I know that there has also been a problem with addresses being reocrded. When I was at Uni I got polling card then but then I went home and found I had had one there also. I have a twin who could have used that vote, and therefore I could have voted in two places. When he was at Uni he lived close to our home address and could have voted at Uni and at home on the same day. If you had to prove with ID it was definitely you voting then at least you could be held to account in future.
It is perfectly valid to be on the register in both places, and even to vote in both for local elections. In practice though most whare double registered are students and the like, and part of the reason young voters appear to have low turnout. Any individual registered twice would have a 50% turnout recorded, at most.
Mr. Romford, there were, in the pilot, literally dozens of acceptable forms of ID, including driving licences and passports, so most people would have them already.
The portrayal of this as being something that 'the young' inherently do not have and will struggle to acquire is nonsense. Most will have a valid type of ID already and acquiring one if not will be free of charge. This is neither difficult nor costly.
On topic there is actually some logic behind as was explained last night. Obtaining the 60+ Oyster is dependent on providing other proof of identification - thus it is a proxy ID. There is no such requirement for the 18+ card, so it is not suitable.
Of course it can and will be spun as an attempt to stop younger voters, Having read the debate last night I now think it is cack-handed but not malicious.
I have always said that ID should only be needed to vote if you do not bring your Polling Card. Job done.
I am absolutely certain the intention is to make it more difficult for younger people to vote than older people. Even if the project started as an attempt to address a real perceived problem (already doubtful), now it is known to create big biases it would be dropped as unworkable, unless the intention is precisely to take advantage of those biases.
Surely the solution is that you need ID to get an oyster 18+ card and can use it for ID purposes - simple
You would be requiring certain demographics to get ID, involving a fair degree of hassle, specifically to vote, when other demographics have deemed adequate ID already.
In principle I am not opposed to an ID requirement for voting, for example if everyone must have government issued ID, as is the case in many countries. I am in favour of any measure that make voting easier if it comes with an acceptable risk. This proposal does the opposite. I am opposed to discriminatory measures, as in this case.
Those "adequate IDs" you refer to are obtained by showing proof of ID with one of the other IDs that are available to all ages. The Oyster 60+ is just a proxy for a passport, for example.
Mr. Romford, there were, in the pilot, literally dozens of acceptable forms of ID, including driving licences and passports, so most people would have them already.
The portrayal of this as being something that 'the young' inherently do not have and will struggle to acquire is nonsense. Most will have a valid type of ID already and acquiring one if not will be free of charge. This is neither difficult nor costly.
Again:
WHY DO WE NEED VOTER ID?
To suppress non-Conservative younger voters. Do keep up!
Mr. Jonathan, I also think passports should exist.
Do you think it's unreasonable to have any form of ID? Supporting that and not supporting mandatory ID cards and the attached monstrosity of a database is entirely consistent.
Attacking someone for not being in favour of ID cards but (assuming it's akin to the pilot) backing the use of one of any of dozens of ID, including one that's free upon request, is not necessarily compelling as arguments go.
It's the difference between needing a card for a particular purpose and needing one just because.
On voting I don't think it is necessary, though broadly speaking I think people don't think it unreasonable so long as there's a range of options. I don't support the policy at its principle, but people have multiple options so do they all need the same amount?
Mr. Jonathan, I also think passports should exist.
Do you think it's unreasonable to have any form of ID? Supporting that and not supporting mandatory ID cards and the attached monstrosity of a database is entirely consistent.
Attacking someone for not being in favour of ID cards but (assuming it's akin to the pilot) backing the use of one of any of dozens of ID, including one that's free upon request, is not necessarily compelling as arguments go.
Voting should be as easy as possible. It's important.
If you make something very easy is it valued? If it isn't valued you won't bother to do it.
On Topic - I remember when we were having a discussion about voting irregularities on PB. Many people took the line that this didn't happen
Literally while the discussion was happening, the news of the case (in Birmingham IIRC) where several councillor were arrested while supervising a literal vote forging factory came in.
The line then changed to "of course local elections are corrupt, we were talking about *national* elections"
Given the experience of a friend who tried to report his vote stolen in Tower Hamlets (for a national election, among others), I wonder how much suppression of reporting of voting irregularities is going on.
Incidentally, the changes bring the rest of the UK into line with NI.
The problem with voter fraud is that it is not like financial fraud where you may notice your finances being depleted. So detection of voter fraud requires the person being defrauded to be informed and aware. I definitely know of a case of voter fraud that was undetected, and I am sure others will also be aware. That is not to say that it is a bit problem but am fundamentally disagree with the measure Mike has used repeatedly, which is detected cases. That for me is a tip of the iceberg kind of measure - who know the size of the problem below the water.
Personation (in-person voter fraud) is easy to detect. You turn up at the polling station and are told you have already voted. Fraud detected. Or you voted early, and later on your imposter turns up and is told he has already voted. Fraud detected.
The number of votes you'd need to swing to affect the result in most constituencies means it is not even worth bothering, so no-one bothers which is why next to no fraud is detected.
Postal votes and proxies, on the other hand, are open to fraud, and other recent worrying developments are allowing pressure and selfies inside polling stations, about which the government seems strangely unconcerned.
I agree postal and proxy voting are more likely to lead to voter fraud, but I know that there has also been a problem with addresses being reocrded. When I was at Uni I got polling card then but then I went home and found I had had one there also. I have a twin who could have used that vote, and therefore I could have voted in two places. When he was at Uni he lived close to our home address and could have voted at Uni and at home on the same day. If you had to prove with ID it was definitely you voting then at least you could be held to account in future.
Yes, your twin could have voted for you. Maybe they did, or maybe your twin looked at the sitting MP's majority in the thousands and decided not to bother as a single fraudulent vote would make no difference, or perhaps your twin was honest.
Mr. Jonathan, I also think passports should exist.
Do you think it's unreasonable to have any form of ID? Supporting that and not supporting mandatory ID cards and the attached monstrosity of a database is entirely consistent.
Attacking someone for not being in favour of ID cards but (assuming it's akin to the pilot) backing the use of one of any of dozens of ID, including one that's free upon request, is not necessarily compelling as arguments go.
Voting should be as easy as possible. It's important.
If you make something very easy is it valued? If it isn't valued you won't bother to do it.
If only there were some way of counting how many people vote.
What a truck looks like after it has been nearby a HIMARs missile loaded with tungsten balls. From a distance it looks fine but the entirety of it is full of small holes and unusable.
On Topic - I remember when we were having a discussion about voting irregularities on PB. Many people took the line that this didn't happen
Literally while the discussion was happening, the news of the case (in Birmingham IIRC) where several councillor were arrested while supervising a literal vote forging factory came in.
The line then changed to "of course local elections are corrupt, we were talking about *national* elections"
Given the experience of a friend who tried to report his vote stolen in Tower Hamlets (for a national election, among others), I wonder how much suppression of reporting of voting irregularities is going on.
Incidentally, the changes bring the rest of the UK into line with NI.
The problem with voter fraud is that it is not like financial fraud where you may notice your finances being depleted. So detection of voter fraud requires the person being defrauded to be informed and aware. I definitely know of a case of voter fraud that was undetected, and I am sure others will also be aware. That is not to say that it is a bit problem but am fundamentally disagree with the measure Mike has used repeatedly, which is detected cases. That for me is a tip of the iceberg kind of measure - who know the size of the problem below the water.
Was the voting fraud by postal vote or by impersonation at a polling station?
My money would be on the latter being much lower than the first, yet it is in person voting being targeted.
My friend had his polling card diverted to a different address.
I wonder how many people, if they vote in person, and the polling card doesn't show up, shrug and get on with the rest of life?
Yes, but don't you agree that most cases of systemic voter fraud have been via postal and proxy voting?
On topic there is actually some logic behind as was explained last night. Obtaining the 60+ Oyster is dependent on providing other proof of identification - thus it is a proxy ID. There is no such requirement for the 18+ card, so it is not suitable.
Of course it can and will be spun as an attempt to stop younger voters, Having read the debate last night I now think it is cack-handed but not malicious.
I have always said that ID should only be needed to vote if you do not bring your Polling Card. Job done.
I am absolutely certain the intention is to make it more difficult for younger people to vote than older people. Even if the project started as an attempt to address a real perceived problem (already doubtful), now it is known to create big biases it would be dropped as unworkable, unless the intention is precisely to take advantage of those biases.
Surely the solution is that you need ID to get an oyster 18+ card and can use it for ID purposes - simple
You would be requiring certain demographics to get ID, involving a fair degree of hassle, specifically to vote, when other demographics have deemed adequate ID already.
In principle I am not opposed to an ID requirement for voting, for example if everyone must have government issued ID, as is the case in many countries. I am in favour of any measure that make voting easier if it comes with an acceptable risk. This proposal does the opposite. I am opposed to discriminatory measures, as in this case.
It seems on research that 9% of the population don't have eligible ID and presumably wouldn't get it just for voting. Effectively they are disenfranchised by this proposal. Maybe they wouldn't vote anyway, but that's not the point.
There may be a further proportion of the public who do have ID but wouldn't vote because of extra steps relating to the ID requirement
Mr. Romford, there were, in the pilot, literally dozens of acceptable forms of ID, including driving licences and passports, so most people would have them already.
The portrayal of this as being something that 'the young' inherently do not have and will struggle to acquire is nonsense. Most will have a valid type of ID already and acquiring one if not will be free of charge. This is neither difficult nor costly.
Again:
WHY DO WE NEED VOTER ID?
We don't.
But that's a separate issue to, it being required now, is the approach sinister.
Not as much as claimed is my view, but still unnecessary and will come across as unfair, undermining the system
F*** me! A couple of days ago I was lynched by PB Tories for daring to confirm my approval of national identity cards, and here we are, PB Tories discussing what identity cards should be made available so older voters can vote Tory.
Mr. Romford, there were, in the pilot, literally dozens of acceptable forms of ID, including driving licences and passports, so most people would have them already.
The portrayal of this as being something that 'the young' inherently do not have and will struggle to acquire is nonsense. Most will have a valid type of ID already and acquiring one if not will be free of charge. This is neither difficult nor costly.
Again:
WHY DO WE NEED VOTER ID?
The independent Electoral Commission said it was needed for security.
No objection to voting ID so long as there's a plethora of ID available easily. What's not acceptable is having one form of ID acceptable for one demographic but not another, that isn't OK.
Mr. Romford, there were, in the pilot, literally dozens of acceptable forms of ID, including driving licences and passports, so most people would have them already.
The portrayal of this as being something that 'the young' inherently do not have and will struggle to acquire is nonsense. Most will have a valid type of ID already and acquiring one if not will be free of charge. This is neither difficult nor costly.
Again:
WHY DO WE NEED VOTER ID?
To suppress non-Conservative younger voters. Do keep up!
And to suppress non-Conservative older and middle-aged voters. There was some discussion after Boris's red wall breakthrough as to whether voter ID would shoot Conservatives in the foot if it cost them their new, less affluent voters.
On Topic - I remember when we were having a discussion about voting irregularities on PB. Many people took the line that this didn't happen
Literally while the discussion was happening, the news of the case (in Birmingham IIRC) where several councillor were arrested while supervising a literal vote forging factory came in.
The line then changed to "of course local elections are corrupt, we were talking about *national* elections"
Given the experience of a friend who tried to report his vote stolen in Tower Hamlets (for a national election, among others), I wonder how much suppression of reporting of voting irregularities is going on.
Incidentally, the changes bring the rest of the UK into line with NI.
The problem with voter fraud is that it is not like financial fraud where you may notice your finances being depleted. So detection of voter fraud requires the person being defrauded to be informed and aware. I definitely know of a case of voter fraud that was undetected, and I am sure others will also be aware. That is not to say that it is a bit problem but am fundamentally disagree with the measure Mike has used repeatedly, which is detected cases. That for me is a tip of the iceberg kind of measure - who know the size of the problem below the water.
Was the voting fraud by postal vote or by impersonation at a polling station?
My money would be on the latter being much lower than the first, yet it is in person voting being targeted.
My friend had his polling card diverted to a different address.
I wonder how many people, if they vote in person, and the polling card doesn't show up, shrug and get on with the rest of life?
Yes, but don't you agree that most cases of systemic voter fraud have been via postal and proxy voting?
That have been identified - but using crime stats to find crime has an interesting history.
Note that in NI, widespread voter fraud was nearly never found via police investigation.
Mr. Jonathan, I also think passports should exist.
Do you think it's unreasonable to have any form of ID? Supporting that and not supporting mandatory ID cards and the attached monstrosity of a database is entirely consistent.
Attacking someone for not being in favour of ID cards but (assuming it's akin to the pilot) backing the use of one of any of dozens of ID, including one that's free upon request, is not necessarily compelling as arguments go.
Voting should be as easy as possible. It's important.
If you make something very easy is it valued? If it isn't valued you won't bother to do it.
I don't think really applies to voting. Turnout dipped for years (and since risen) when the ease was essentially the same.
What a truck looks like after it has been nearby a HIMARs missile loaded with tungsten balls. From a distance it looks fine but the entirety of it is full of small holes and unusable.
Mr. Jonathan, I also think passports should exist.
Do you think it's unreasonable to have any form of ID? Supporting that and not supporting mandatory ID cards and the attached monstrosity of a database is entirely consistent.
Attacking someone for not being in favour of ID cards but (assuming it's akin to the pilot) backing the use of one of any of dozens of ID, including one that's free upon request, is not necessarily compelling as arguments go.
Voting should be as easy as possible. It's important.
Even for people who aren't eligible?
All of the 8 billion @SeanT's should be allowed to vote.
Which is why Leave won the referendum...
The SeanTs were in 2 minds about it. That's why it was 52/48.
Comments
An independent Scotland will face a lot of the same things vis a vis England and Wales.
One red flag, however, was when I was searching on Qatari real estate websites for a place to live. I put in my price bracket (massive, obvs) but in amongst the glittering penthouses were several uh... other properties in the same price bracket. Turns out for the same amount of money pcm, I could rent a bunkhouse fitting up to 40 "workers". Pictures were included. Slave galleys sprung to mind.
Sometimes I wonder why it's all so visible - then I realise - it's because they genuinely don't see anything wrong with this kind of socioeconomic model.
And that is why the world cup is going to be such a disaster. Most tinpot countries build potemkin villages because they *know* how to present themselves to the outside world. Qatar presents itself as it is, and is proud of what it is.
Chaos will ensue.
Do you think it's unreasonable to have any form of ID? Supporting that and not supporting mandatory ID cards and the attached monstrosity of a database is entirely consistent.
Attacking someone for not being in favour of ID cards but (assuming it's akin to the pilot) backing the use of one of any of dozens of ID, including one that's free upon request, is not necessarily compelling as arguments go.
It's pretty plain that had we never left the EU, our fiscal position, and rate of inflation would be much the same as it is now.
If our problem is low productivity then the solution is to take steps to deal with low productivity. Although, as Robert Smithson has frequently pointed out, it's the least useful economic statistic. High productivity is often a feature of low levels of employment.
In general, I think the government is stupid to be trying to plug the fiscal gap at this point. Over the past two and a half years, we've faced the fiscal equivalent of a wartime situation. Our debt to GDP ratio is not out of line with the rich world average.
Unfortunately, after Theresa May's failure to win a majority, the Conservative Party proved itself incompetent and corrupt. Labour under Corbyn was worse, but now it is not.
I’m actually quite pragmatic when it comes to worker accommodation, having seen what the slums of Pakistan and Bangladesh look like. And having seen what the slums of Slough look like, where a 3-bed house is regularly cleared out with 20 or more people living there.
My fix for that issue would be a no-strike agreement, such as have been used in many industries, which uses third party assessments for wage increases. Now, I wonder why no government would be keen on that?
“Tax burden unlikely to go back to pre-Covid levels in 'next few decades'
We’re in a “new era” of higher taxation and higher spending as a fraction of national income as a bigger state.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/nov/18/jeremy-hunt-warns-of-two-challenging-years-after-autumn-statement-budget-uk-politics-live
“The British people “just got a lot poorer”, a leading thinktank has warned, after a series of “economic own goals” that have made a recovery much harder than it might have been.
In his verdict on the chancellor’s autumn statement, Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), said the government was “reaping the costs of a long-term failure to grow the economy”, along with an ageing population and high levels of historic borrowing.”
In 2008, yes we saw unemployment rise, but way below previous recessions. Instead the government fired up the printing presses, policies were already in place that effectively subsidised employment via things like tax credits and elsewhere rather than unemployment we saw widespread wage (real term) reductions. Now you could argue that is preferable to the sort of unemployment we saw in say the 80s, but it also meant a lot of businesses staggered along without really reforming process.
Since then the cheap money tap / credit has continued to be turned on for the past 15 years, unrealistically low interest rates, living beyond our means with high borrowing and no real push for productivity gains from government or the market.
Then disruption of Brexit, following by world war-esque global pandemic and final kick in the nuts of a war in Europe between countries that provide key staple goods.
My understanding is that fraud is at such a low level in this country that the voting ID is a solution looking for a problem.
See also the goons stopping the Danish TV crew from filming.
The number of votes you'd need to swing to affect the result in most constituencies means it is not even worth bothering, so no-one bothers which is why next to no fraud is detected.
Postal votes and proxies, on the other hand, are open to fraud, and other recent worrying developments are allowing pressure and selfies inside polling stations, about which the government seems strangely unconcerned.
Which, however, the Scottish Conservatives are claiming [edit] are or had been already "on strike" in Scotland. Which is news to everyone else. Though not news that they are using this claim to blame the SNP.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/23127566.scottish-tories-astonishing-response-fake-news-accusations/
The difference is that we don't advertise "beds in sheds" on rightmove.com side by side prime London property, because we know it's not something to be proud of. In Qatar, I found it was just all out in the open.
As you say, we are just as bad for it. There is an argument to be said that we're the hypocrites, at least the Qataris are being honest about it.
What price Roger's £1 coffee in Pret?
Britain is about to become the South Bronx in 1978. It’s time to move to LA
One would hope the hotel in question would have been to distinguish the two Coxes by their respective titles.
One is Professor Brian Cox and the other Mr Brian Cox.
Easy.
Leon has hyperventilated between Brexit being the best thing since sliced bread and a disaster since before the referendum.
But here is a real difference - in many countries, there isn't a narrative of "our evil ancestors did X". They are in the Ra Ra We Are The Bestest mode. They see nothing in their past or present to be ashamed of.
In addition, since they have nothing to be ashamed of, their culture and religion is, of course, The Best In The World. Meaning that everyone else is somewhere between a poor, benighted, uncultured rube and an actual Heretic.
Why don't you have a look at some European inflation rates?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/225698/monthly-inflation-rate-in-eu-countries/
Before Thatcherism the UK was strike ridden, filled with inefficient nationalised industry and with a gdp per capital below the EEC average
The News Agents dissect the Autumn statement and discuss how rejoining the EU could rise up the political agenda.
Listen on @GlobalPlayer
https://www.globalplayer.com/podcasts/episodes/7DreioB/
@maitlis | @jonsopel | @lewis_goodall https://twitter.com/TheNewsAgents/status/1593568489838477313/video/1
My money would be on the latter being much lower than the first, yet it is in person voting being targeted.
If young people can be expected to apply for a voter ID from the town hall, so can everyone else.
In any case, adding the 60+ Oyster card has no material effect on the number of people who have a valid form of ID. Since 100% of people with a 60+ Oyster card will have used their passport, another form of valid ID, to get it.
Huge crowds. Looks like a proper revolution, no longer just “protests”
https://twitter.com/iranintl_en/status/1593521212843593730?s=46&t=stHfbmGxFVJ84GA84jMfoA
https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/government-debt-to-gdp?continent=europe
I wonder how many people, if they vote in person, and the polling card doesn't show up, shrug and get on with the rest of life?
So in reality the problem is tiny, and irrelevant - certainly when we have a voting system that casts millions of people's votes straight into the bin.
The portrayal of this as being something that 'the young' inherently do not have and will struggle to acquire is nonsense. Most will have a valid type of ID already and acquiring one if not will be free of charge. This is neither difficult nor costly.
https://order-order.com/2022/11/18/bryants-kate-andrews-hectoring-flops-on-two-levels/
It’s human nature. The religious instinct
Most of our problems come from multiple failures accruing over two decades - nothing to do with Brexit. And also global events have created horrible headwinds
So what do we do? What can we do? We must have done something wrong and we need to reverse it. Brexit is the problem! Reverse Brexit!
Brexit will get the blame for everything. Unfairly. But it’s a nice irony as the EU got the blame for everything preBrexit
In principle I am not opposed to an ID requirement for voting, for example if everyone must have government issued ID, as is the case in many countries. I am in favour of any measure that make voting easier if it comes with an acceptable risk. This proposal does the opposite. I am opposed to discriminatory measures, as in this case.
It seems kind of weird to me that the marked register showing this information is available, but only to people who pay for it. The security case would be for either not showing it to anyone, to make this kind of attack harder, or to make it widely available, so that people could tell if someone had voted on their or their neighbour's behalf.
Another thing you might do if you were genuinely worried about it would be to send the *voter* that information about themselves, so they could blow the whistle if there were votes being cast in their name. You could include the voter's previous voting record along with their polling card in the next election.
Ironic that my constituency MP will become PM
Haven't you actually listened to some locals when you've travelled?
It is quite interesting to hear people from cultures where They Have No Doubt. And they see The Doubt in the West as pathetic and evidence of our manifest decline. Rather than a mature response to the past.
Russian soldier reviews the consequences of a HIMARS strike that devastated his KAMAZ truck, swearing a lot.
https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1593573406829678593
WHY DO WE NEED VOTER ID?
On voting I don't think it is necessary, though broadly speaking I think people don't think it unreasonable so long as there's a range of options. I don't support the policy at its principle, but people have multiple options so do they all need the same amount?
If it isn't valued you won't bother to do it.
Buddy was obviously not happy at being told to fix that. Blyat.
There may be a further proportion of the public who do have ID but wouldn't vote because of extra steps relating to the ID requirement
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/984918/Photographic_ID_research-_headline_findings_report.pdf
But that's a separate issue to, it being required now, is the approach sinister.
Not as much as claimed is my view, but still unnecessary and will come across as unfair, undermining the system
No objection to voting ID so long as there's a plethora of ID available easily. What's not acceptable is having one form of ID acceptable for one demographic but not another, that isn't OK.
Note that in NI, widespread voter fraud was nearly never found via police investigation.