Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Good to see that the C of E tradition for housing otherworldly eccentrics still flourishes.
I’m interested (as an atheist) as to how the Head Shed of a religion using a religious ceremony, in his number one venue, for recruitment is “hijacking”.
Isn’t that his job?
I'm more interested in how he thinks the coronation might convert anyone at all.
It really is a very odd idea.
Many might be attracted by the sacred music and Christian message which will be part of the ceremony
Just one comment on the subject of the post: Those I have talked to here, including some who have relatives in Scotland, are absolutely amazed by the likelihood that one Humza Yousaf will be the leader of the SNP, and probably FM.
Scotland is NOT racist, certainly by US standards.
However, it IS sectarian, by US standards, ditto England & Wales.
In certain bits of Scotland you get some sectarianism - of a rude but generally not lethal form.
Where in England and Wales does anyone actually give a crap what your religion is? Apart from the usual Nazis, or course.
It is restricted nowadays , west of Scotland and a diminishing amount of ill educated numpties only.
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Good to see that the C of E tradition for housing otherworldly eccentrics still flourishes.
I’m interested (as an atheist) as to how the Head Shed of a religion using a religious ceremony, in his number one venue, for recruitment is “hijacking”.
Isn’t that his job?
I'm more interested in how he thinks the coronation might convert anyone at all.
It really is a very odd idea.
The CoE is utterly crap at retention and recruitment. Both of clergy and laity. Why should they suddenly get a clue?
Compared to some former competitors like the Methodists it isn't
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Good to see that the C of E tradition for housing otherworldly eccentrics still flourishes.
I’m interested (as an atheist) as to how the Head Shed of a religion using a religious ceremony, in his number one venue, for recruitment is “hijacking”.
Isn’t that his job?
I'm more interested in how he thinks the coronation might convert anyone at all.
It really is a very odd idea.
Many might be attracted by the sacred music and Christian message which will be part of the ceremony
I guess it might distract us from worrying about whether the crown will slip over his ears. Oh, hang on...
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Good to see that the C of E tradition for housing otherworldly eccentrics still flourishes.
47% of the UK population are still Christian
LOL If you think 47% of the population are going to indulge in 'spiritual preparation' for the coronation, you're worthy of a C of E bishopric yourself.
Just one comment on the subject of the post: Those I have talked to here, including some who have relatives in Scotland, are absolutely amazed by the likelihood that one Humza Yousaf will be the leader of the SNP, and probably FM.
Scotland is NOT racist, certainly by US standards.
However, it IS sectarian, by US standards, ditto England & Wales.
I very much hope Scotland is not racist in an "institutional" way, like the Met Police, but there are plenty of racists in Scotland, some on the grounds of skin colour and many on their irrational hatred of a rather diverse group of people they call "the English". This Anglophobia is probably a large driver of the Scottish Nationalist movement.
That is unadultered piss, take a good look at yourself in the mirror, under that gammony exterior lies a Little Englander racist.
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Good to see that the C of E tradition for housing otherworldly eccentrics still flourishes.
I’m interested (as an atheist) as to how the Head Shed of a religion using a religious ceremony, in his number one venue, for recruitment is “hijacking”.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
This sounds like you're cagily viewing the billions of people in less developed countries as some gigantic mono-mass of humanity so purely driven by monetary concerns that they'd all migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. I doubt this is the case myself. I think most people prefer to make a life in their own country.
To be clear, I do, a bit, and I don't mean to do so pejoratively. If I lived in Chad or Eritrea or Somalia I'd migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. Mind you, if I lived in Coventry or Tunbridge Wells or Stoke I'd migrate the dozens of miles to Manchester given half the chance. 'Cos Manchester's boss. Nice one, our kid.
Top place obviously. About time I visited it again. It's been too long. But I do think you're underestimating how similar people all over the world are. Just as we are attached to our patch so are they. I don't buy this "4 billion are chomping at the bit to come here and they will if we let our guard down" type rhetoric. I think it's mainly a strawman debating technique of anti-immigrationers.
From being in Peru, having Peruvian relatives etc. you’d get 20%+ who would board a plane tomorrow, if they thought they could stay and get a job.
I’m talking “run for the plane without a second thought”.
I will have to take your word for this. Obviously we can't accept 7m from Peru.
The problem that some people have is that they see economic migrant as a pejorative label.
Everyone you meet in Peru sees getting to a First World country as a first step to getting Rich. You have to work, but there are the examples of those who've built home in Peru after making it big overseas. Houses with £1000 stainless steel taps in the kitchen and all the Mayfair style stuff.
The same is true of many other countries.
If you stay - the opportunities are limited. It may be hard for you to believe, but countries like Peru have much less opportunity for a someone at the bottom to rise, than say, the UK.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
If getting the current system to work promptly and efficiently is "less plausible", then why do you have any faith that the Rwanda option will be executed well enough? If a succession of Conservative Home Secretaries are unable to enforce the existing rules, allowing a massive backlog to develop, why do you want to give them more powers? Enforce the existing rules, save money, allow those with valid asylum claims to get out of the system and into jobs where they can contribute to the country, and deport those without valid claims.
Promptly deporting individuals who do not have a valid asylum claim will deter people without valid asylum claims.
Fair points, and the answer is that I don't. But as advice, " dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim" seems to equate to "just be better". You can't magic yourself competent. And however much we'd like to, it's hard to believe all home secretaries are genuinely idiots and everyone at the home office genuinely useless. More plausible to me is that we're asking them to do an impossible job. I have no faith in the Rwanda option. I doubt it will ever seriously happen. But at least they're not pretending the problem doesn't exist. If a future regime manages to deal with the backlog, promptly process applications and send back those who do not have a claim I will take this back.
Why can the Dutch process 95% of claims within 2 months? Are they magicians? Or do they have the political will and resources that our governments, mostly Tory, but even when new Labour still authoritarian within the Home Office, do not provide?
By all means fund it properly now specify what you are going to fund less than currently to make up the extra budget.
Well there's a billion or so already being spent every year keeping these folk in detention, and rather a lot promised to Rwanda for nothing very useful. A competently run Home Office along the lines suggested might actually cost us less.
That though is merely speculation, more efficient processing on the other hand may increase costs because more decide to come knowing they won't be waiting for years before they can work.
I am highly sceptical of "if we do this it might save us money" somehow everytime we end up spending more
And yet other countries do manage to fund all sorts of things properly via the government without their population revolting at the taxes they pay.
We're going wrong somewhere as a nation, and I find it increasingly hard to escape the feeling that a) the UK is especially prone to a kind of "penny wise, pound foolish" thinking that is increasingly biting us on the bum as all the short term patches fail at once and b) the money we've saved by doing this has largely ended up in house price inflation and hasn't actually made most of us much happier.
I could be completely wrong but isn’t there a theory that there is an “Anglo-Saxon” culture of individualism that’s been the English culture for centuries which manifests itself in a lot of the political and cultural and business attitudes you find in the UK, US, Australia which makes it a lot harder to get certain things done.
I think about it with big infrastructure where a lot of countries with either very traditionally centralised cultures or cultures based on long histories of powerful central control, say Japan, China, France) the govt can push through an HS2 type project as even if farmer Jacques grumbles there is an element of “for the greater good as long as I’m compensated” where as English nimbyism goes back to “an Englishman’s home is his castle” mentality.
If you look at things such as the attitudes to looking after elderly parents or children in restaurants there seems to be a more inclusive social attitude elsewhere that isn’t so evident in the Anglo world of getting out there and making money to have your patch of ground.
So we end up rejecting a lot of long term planning because it’s of no benefit to “me”.
Just one comment on the subject of the post: Those I have talked to here, including some who have relatives in Scotland, are absolutely amazed by the likelihood that one Humza Yousaf will be the leader of the SNP, and probably FM.
Scotland is NOT racist, certainly by US standards.
However, it IS sectarian, by US standards, ditto England & Wales.
I very much hope Scotland is not racist in an "institutional" way, like the Met Police, but there are plenty of racists in Scotland, some on the grounds of skin colour and many on their irrational hatred of a rather diverse group of people they call "the English". This Anglophobia is probably a large driver of the Scottish Nationalist movement.
That is unadultered piss, take a good look at yourself in the mirror, under that gammony exterior lies a Little Englander racist.
Lol. I expected a bit of frothing from our resident amoeba brain nationalist. Your Anglophobia spews out of 90% of your semi-literate posts you feeble brained fool. If you knew anything about me you would realise how stupid your bit of psychologically projected nonsense is.
You and @StuartDickson are the personification of the type of racist that is north of the border that hides behind a pretence of saying your support is for localised government. At least @StuartDickson is honest; he admits he is an Anglophobe racist, though you don't need to as it is so obvious.
I guess the anger management programme hasn't worked that well, or have you been bullied by your wife again about how bad your breath smells?
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
If getting the current system to work promptly and efficiently is "less plausible", then why do you have any faith that the Rwanda option will be executed well enough? If a succession of Conservative Home Secretaries are unable to enforce the existing rules, allowing a massive backlog to develop, why do you want to give them more powers? Enforce the existing rules, save money, allow those with valid asylum claims to get out of the system and into jobs where they can contribute to the country, and deport those without valid claims.
Promptly deporting individuals who do not have a valid asylum claim will deter people without valid asylum claims.
Fair points, and the answer is that I don't. But as advice, " dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim" seems to equate to "just be better". You can't magic yourself competent. And however much we'd like to, it's hard to believe all home secretaries are genuinely idiots and everyone at the home office genuinely useless. More plausible to me is that we're asking them to do an impossible job. I have no faith in the Rwanda option. I doubt it will ever seriously happen. But at least they're not pretending the problem doesn't exist. If a future regime manages to deal with the backlog, promptly process applications and send back those who do not have a claim I will take this back.
Why can the Dutch process 95% of claims within 2 months? Are they magicians? Or do they have the political will and resources that our governments, mostly Tory, but even when new Labour still authoritarian within the Home Office, do not provide?
By all means fund it properly now specify what you are going to fund less than currently to make up the extra budget.
Well there's a billion or so already being spent every year keeping these folk in detention, and rather a lot promised to Rwanda for nothing very useful. A competently run Home Office along the lines suggested might actually cost us less.
That though is merely speculation, more efficient processing on the other hand may increase costs because more decide to come knowing they won't be waiting for years before they can work.
I am highly sceptical of "if we do this it might save us money" somehow everytime we end up spending more
And I'm highly sceptical of the utility of locking up a hundred thousand plus for years at a time for no good reason.
The current policies are both expensive and ineffective.
Where did I say currently what we have is good, just pointing out the call to properly fund comes with a cost.
Everyone on here is always demanding their pet cause be properly funded and no one ever goes and to fund it we can cut this or that
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Good to see that the C of E tradition for housing otherworldly eccentrics still flourishes.
I’m interested (as an atheist) as to how the Head Shed of a religion using a religious ceremony, in his number one venue, for recruitment is “hijacking”.
Isn’t that his job?
I'm more interested in how he thinks the coronation might convert anyone at all.
It really is a very odd idea.
Yes - "I was against the concept of thr monarchy, but the sheer magnificence of the ceremony won me over" - hard to imagine that's going to be a massive group.
Just one comment on the subject of the post: Those I have talked to here, including some who have relatives in Scotland, are absolutely amazed by the likelihood that one Humza Yousaf will be the leader of the SNP, and probably FM.
Scotland is NOT racist, certainly by US standards.
However, it IS sectarian, by US standards, ditto England & Wales.
I very much hope Scotland is not racist in an "institutional" way, like the Met Police, but there are plenty of racists in Scotland, some on the grounds of skin colour and many on their irrational hatred of a rather diverse group of people they call "the English". This Anglophobia is probably a large driver of the Scottish Nationalist movement.
That is unadultered piss, take a good look at yourself in the mirror, under that gammony exterior lies a Little Englander racist.
Lol. I expected a bit of frothing from our resident amoeba brain nationalist. Your Anglophobia spews out of 90% of your semi-literate posts you feeble brained fool. If you knew anything about me you would realise how stupid your bit of psychologically projected nonsense is.
You and @StuartDickson are the personification of the type of racist that is north of the border that hides behind a pretence of saying your support is for localised government. At least @StuartDickson is honest; he admits he is an Anglophobe racist, though you don't need to as it is so obvious.
I guess the anger management programme hasn't worked that well, or have you been bullied by your wife again about how bad your breath smells?
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Good to see that the C of E tradition for housing otherworldly eccentrics still flourishes.
I’m interested (as an atheist) as to how the Head Shed of a religion using a religious ceremony, in his number one venue, for recruitment is “hijacking”.
Isn’t that his job?
I'm more interested in how he thinks the coronation might convert anyone at all.
It really is a very odd idea.
Many might be attracted by the sacred music and Christian message which will be part of the ceremony
I do not have a faith, nonetheless I like church bells, choral music, madrigals, certain hymns and carols, particularly from my childhood, oh, and gospel choirs, and I believe in the basic premise of the 10 Commandments. Even as a faithless heathen, the King's ignorance of at least one of the 10 Commandments will not pass me by whilst I do my best to avoid the coronation.
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Good to see that the C of E tradition for housing otherworldly eccentrics still flourishes.
I’m interested (as an atheist) as to how the Head Shed of a religion using a religious ceremony, in his number one venue, for recruitment is “hijacking”.
Isn’t that his job?
I'm more interested in how he thinks the coronation might convert anyone at all.
It really is a very odd idea.
Yes - "I was against the concept of thr monarchy, but the sheer magnificence of the ceremony won me over" - hard to imagine that's going to be a massive group.
It isn't trying to convert republicans to monarchists, the focus is more on converting agnostic monarchists to Christian monarchists from the Church of England's point of view (and Welby is on the evangelical wing of the Church of England after all).
Given about 2/3 of the UK population are monarchists still but only 47% of the UK population are now Christians that is nearly 20% of the UK population for the Church of England to target and only a minority of them will be from other faiths or confirmed atheists
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Good to see that the C of E tradition for housing otherworldly eccentrics still flourishes.
I’m interested (as an atheist) as to how the Head Shed of a religion using a religious ceremony, in his number one venue, for recruitment is “hijacking”.
Isn’t that his job?
I'm more interested in how he thinks the coronation might convert anyone at all.
It really is a very odd idea.
Yes - "I was against the concept of thr monarchy, but the sheer magnificence of the ceremony won me over" - hard to imagine that's going to be a massive group.
It isn't trying to convert republicans to monarchists, the focus is more on converting agnostic monarchists to Christian monarchists from the Church of England's point of view (and Welby is on the evangelical wing of the Church of England after all).
Given about 2/3 of the UK population are monarchists still but only 47% of the UK population are now Christians that is nearly 20% of the UK population for the Church of England to target and only a minority of them will be from other faiths or confirmed atheists
Luke 18 comes to mind, for some reason. I wonder why?
22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. 23 And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich. 24 And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! 25 For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
This sounds like you're cagily viewing the billions of people in less developed countries as some gigantic mono-mass of humanity so purely driven by monetary concerns that they'd all migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. I doubt this is the case myself. I think most people prefer to make a life in their own country.
To be clear, I do, a bit, and I don't mean to do so pejoratively. If I lived in Chad or Eritrea or Somalia I'd migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. Mind you, if I lived in Coventry or Tunbridge Wells or Stoke I'd migrate the dozens of miles to Manchester given half the chance. 'Cos Manchester's boss. Nice one, our kid.
Top place obviously. About time I visited it again. It's been too long. But I do think you're underestimating how similar people all over the world are. Just as we are attached to our patch so are they. I don't buy this "4 billion are chomping at the bit to come here and they will if we let our guard down" type rhetoric. I think it's mainly a strawman debating technique of anti-immigrationers.
From being in Peru, having Peruvian relatives etc. you’d get 20%+ who would board a plane tomorrow, if they thought they could stay and get a job.
I’m talking “run for the plane without a second thought”.
I will have to take your word for this. Obviously we can't accept 7m from Peru.
Kinabalu is right. The idea that there are hundreds of millions of people desperate to move to Manchester is ridiculous.
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Good to see that the C of E tradition for housing otherworldly eccentrics still flourishes.
I’m interested (as an atheist) as to how the Head Shed of a religion using a religious ceremony, in his number one venue, for recruitment is “hijacking”.
Isn’t that his job?
I'm more interested in how he thinks the coronation might convert anyone at all.
It really is a very odd idea.
Yes - "I was against the concept of thr monarchy, but the sheer magnificence of the ceremony won me over" - hard to imagine that's going to be a massive group.
It isn't trying to convert republicans to monarchists, the focus is more on converting agnostic monarchists to Christian monarchists from the Church of England's point of view (and Welby is on the evangelical wing of the Church of England after all).
Given about 2/3 of the UK population are monarchists still but only 47% of the UK population are now Christians that is nearly 20% of the UK population for the Church of England to target and only a minority of them will be from other faiths or confirmed atheists
Luke 18 comes to mind, for some reason. I wonder why?
22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. 23 And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich. 24 And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! 25 For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Just one comment on the subject of the post: Those I have talked to here, including some who have relatives in Scotland, are absolutely amazed by the likelihood that one Humza Yousaf will be the leader of the SNP, and probably FM.
Why are they so amazed?
Generalising about the SNP members - they are well left of centre and seem to me to place almost as much importance on this aspect of their identity as supporting the nationalist agenda.
Yousaf is the most left wing of the three candidates. Therefore Yousaf wins.
You're perhaps going by southern standards. Many of them will be much more centrist, especially given that the SSP and then the SGs have mopped up the strongly left-wing element in Scottish politics. The critical issue is how many of them are still members, from before the shift to approchement with the Greens of the last few years.
I think a lot of what we are seeing in the polls is old people looking for any excuse to move back to the Tories which is why the Tories are doing worse in online polls like yougov. The Tories have lost young and working aged people so their core elderly vote is needed to stave off disaster.
Just one comment on the subject of the post: Those I have talked to here, including some who have relatives in Scotland, are absolutely amazed by the likelihood that one Humza Yousaf will be the leader of the SNP, and probably FM.
Scotland is NOT racist, certainly by US standards.
However, it IS sectarian, by US standards, ditto England & Wales.
In certain bits of Scotland you get some sectarianism - of a rude but generally not lethal form.
Where in England and Wales does anyone actually give a crap what your religion is? Apart from the usual Nazis, or course.
It is restricted nowadays , west of Scotland and a diminishing amount of ill educated numpties only.
Folk are of course allowed to call themselves what they like but most of those lads seem to consider themselves British or Irish. I’d prefer that they thought of themselves as Scottish, but ye can only lead a big orange horse to water..
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Good to see that the C of E tradition for housing otherworldly eccentrics still flourishes.
I’m interested (as an atheist) as to how the Head Shed of a religion using a religious ceremony, in his number one venue, for recruitment is “hijacking”.
Isn’t that his job?
I'm more interested in how he thinks the coronation might convert anyone at all.
It really is a very odd idea.
Yes - "I was against the concept of thr monarchy, but the sheer magnificence of the ceremony won me over" - hard to imagine that's going to be a massive group.
It isn't trying to convert republicans to monarchists, the focus is more on converting agnostic monarchists to Christian monarchists from the Church of England's point of view (and Welby is on the evangelical wing of the Church of England after all).
Given about 2/3 of the UK population are monarchists still but only 47% of the UK population are now Christians that is nearly 20% of the UK population for the Church of England to target and only a minority of them will be from other faiths or confirmed atheists
Luke 18 comes to mind, for some reason. I wonder why?
22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. 23 And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich. 24 And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! 25 For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Yes and most of the foodbanks in England are provided by or supported by the Church of England.
Jesus didn't have a problem with wealth as long as it was used to help others, see the parable of the Good Samaritan, Thatcher's favourite
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
If getting the current system to work promptly and efficiently is "less plausible", then why do you have any faith that the Rwanda option will be executed well enough? If a succession of Conservative Home Secretaries are unable to enforce the existing rules, allowing a massive backlog to develop, why do you want to give them more powers? Enforce the existing rules, save money, allow those with valid asylum claims to get out of the system and into jobs where they can contribute to the country, and deport those without valid claims.
Promptly deporting individuals who do not have a valid asylum claim will deter people without valid asylum claims.
Fair points, and the answer is that I don't. But as advice, " dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim" seems to equate to "just be better". You can't magic yourself competent. And however much we'd like to, it's hard to believe all home secretaries are genuinely idiots and everyone at the home office genuinely useless. More plausible to me is that we're asking them to do an impossible job. I have no faith in the Rwanda option. I doubt it will ever seriously happen. But at least they're not pretending the problem doesn't exist. If a future regime manages to deal with the backlog, promptly process applications and send back those who do not have a claim I will take this back.
Why can the Dutch process 95% of claims within 2 months? Are they magicians? Or do they have the political will and resources that our governments, mostly Tory, but even when new Labour still authoritarian within the Home Office, do not provide?
By all means fund it properly now specify what you are going to fund less than currently to make up the extra budget.
Well there's a billion or so already being spent every year keeping these folk in detention, and rather a lot promised to Rwanda for nothing very useful. A competently run Home Office along the lines suggested might actually cost us less.
That though is merely speculation, more efficient processing on the other hand may increase costs because more decide to come knowing they won't be waiting for years before they can work.
I am highly sceptical of "if we do this it might save us money" somehow everytime we end up spending more
And I'm highly sceptical of the utility of locking up a hundred thousand plus for years at a time for no good reason.
The current policies are both expensive and ineffective.
Where did I say currently what we have is good, just pointing out the call to properly fund comes with a cost.
Everyone on here is always demanding their pet cause be properly funded and no one ever goes and to fund it we can cut this or that
We have focussed obsessively on the short term cuts part of the equation for a long time so most of what can be cut there already has been, and beyond what is sustainable. Governments ignore the long term investements that can generate longer term and sustainable savings as they don't help their re-elections with the benefits coming 10-20 years down the line.
What you are left with is indeed few areas that are easy to cut quickly without causing damage and lots of areas where real investment will save money in the long term. People may not want to hear it but that is where we are.
Build more houses, train more doctors, fund the courts system, repair roads properly instead of covering over potholes, all these are simple examples where it should be obvious that spending more now is both the right thing to do, and cheaper over a lifetime.
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Good to see that the C of E tradition for housing otherworldly eccentrics still flourishes.
I’m interested (as an atheist) as to how the Head Shed of a religion using a religious ceremony, in his number one venue, for recruitment is “hijacking”.
Isn’t that his job?
I'm more interested in how he thinks the coronation might convert anyone at all.
It really is a very odd idea.
Yes - "I was against the concept of thr monarchy, but the sheer magnificence of the ceremony won me over" - hard to imagine that's going to be a massive group.
It isn't trying to convert republicans to monarchists, the focus is more on converting agnostic monarchists to Christian monarchists from the Church of England's point of view (and Welby is on the evangelical wing of the Church of England after all).
Given about 2/3 of the UK population are monarchists still but only 47% of the UK population are now Christians that is nearly 20% of the UK population for the Church of England to target and only a minority of them will be from other faiths or confirmed atheists
Just one comment on the subject of the post: Those I have talked to here, including some who have relatives in Scotland, are absolutely amazed by the likelihood that one Humza Yousaf will be the leader of the SNP, and probably FM.
Scotland is NOT racist, certainly by US standards.
However, it IS sectarian, by US standards, ditto England & Wales.
I very much hope Scotland is not racist in an "institutional" way, like the Met Police, but there are plenty of racists in Scotland, some on the grounds of skin colour and many on their irrational hatred of a rather diverse group of people they call "the English". This Anglophobia is probably a large driver of the Scottish Nationalist movement.
That is unadultered piss, take a good look at yourself in the mirror, under that gammony exterior lies a Little Englander racist.
Lol. I expected a bit of frothing from our resident amoeba brain nationalist. Your Anglophobia spews out of 90% of your semi-literate posts you feeble brained fool. If you knew anything about me you would realise how stupid your bit of psychologically projected nonsense is.
You and @StuartDickson are the personification of the type of racist that is north of the border that hides behind a pretence of saying your support is for localised government. At least @StuartDickson is honest; he admits he is an Anglophobe racist, though you don't need to as it is so obvious.
I guess the anger management programme hasn't worked that well, or have you been bullied by your wife again about how bad your breath smells?
Had to like that one. Sorry Malcy.
Sadly I don't have time to wait around for the Baldrick of PB to take about twenty minutes of one finger typing to formulate one of his oh-so not witty abusive reposts.
Have fun everyone. Oh, btw, Malcolm, were you ever a member of the Met Police?
Oh, silly me, of course not. Although you would have felt very at home with the culture, you would be surrounded by the dreaded English and also there would have been the challenge that even for the Met you need to be semi-literate to get in.
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
In 2022, almost half of small boat arrivals were from these 2 nationalities - Albanians (28%) and Afghans (20%), as shown in Figure 4. Albanians were more prominent from July to September 2022, whereas Afghans became more prominent from October to December 2022.
The majority of small boat arrivals claim asylum. In 2022, 90% (40,302 of 44,666 arrivals) claimed asylum or were recorded as a dependant on an asylum application. However, small boat arrivals account for less than half (45%) of the total number of people claiming asylum in the UK in 2022.
Most asylum claims from small boat arrivals are still awaiting a decision; more recent periods will naturally have a higher proportion of asylum applications awaiting a decision, as less time has passed to allow for applications to be processed. 97% (34,793) of small boat asylum applications in the latest year, or 83% (56,883) of all small boat asylum applications since 2018, are awaiting a decision.
Trouble is that quite a bit of what is known doesn't fit the narrative.
Based on what's known (and I don't know the answer to this) what is the proportion for each sex?
You'd expect based on pure need that a majority should rightly be female, but given other selection criteria is at play like who is prepared to jeopardise their safety on a dinghy, or who is prepared to pay people smugglers, that the opposite could be the case.
One of the data tables in the link breaks down the numbers by sex, and yes, the small boat people are overwhelmingly male.
The trouble is that the lack of safe routes for asylum claims from most countries means that the ones taking unsafe routes will be the physically stronger ones and the people more likely to be the neediest of the needy will be scared off. And there is a bit of the old ducking stool logic here; if people are able to cross in boats, they're not truly in need, and if they are truly in need, that's a shame but it's too late now.
Absolutely I completely agree with that.
David Cameron had the right solution nearly a decade ago, say no to people crossing over in boats but expand safe and humanitarian alternatives instead.
Unfortunately putting that right solution into action is easier said than done.
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Good to see that the C of E tradition for housing otherworldly eccentrics still flourishes.
I’m interested (as an atheist) as to how the Head Shed of a religion using a religious ceremony, in his number one venue, for recruitment is “hijacking”.
Isn’t that his job?
I'm more interested in how he thinks the coronation might convert anyone at all.
It really is a very odd idea.
Yes - "I was against the concept of thr monarchy, but the sheer magnificence of the ceremony won me over" - hard to imagine that's going to be a massive group.
It isn't trying to convert republicans to monarchists, the focus is more on converting agnostic monarchists to Christian monarchists from the Church of England's point of view (and Welby is on the evangelical wing of the Church of England after all).
Given about 2/3 of the UK population are monarchists still but only 47% of the UK population are now Christians that is nearly 20% of the UK population for the Church of England to target and only a minority of them will be from other faiths or confirmed atheists
Luke 18 comes to mind, for some reason. I wonder why?
22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. 23 And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich. 24 And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! 25 For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Yes and most of the foodbanks in England are provided by or supported by the Church of England.
Jesus didn't have a problem with wealth as long as it was used to help others, see the parable of the Good Samaritan, Thatcher's favourite
Where in the Parable of the Good Samaritan does it say he was wealthy? The point of the parable is that he’s from a disliked religious group.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
If getting the current system to work promptly and efficiently is "less plausible", then why do you have any faith that the Rwanda option will be executed well enough? If a succession of Conservative Home Secretaries are unable to enforce the existing rules, allowing a massive backlog to develop, why do you want to give them more powers? Enforce the existing rules, save money, allow those with valid asylum claims to get out of the system and into jobs where they can contribute to the country, and deport those without valid claims.
Promptly deporting individuals who do not have a valid asylum claim will deter people without valid asylum claims.
Fair points, and the answer is that I don't. But as advice, " dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim" seems to equate to "just be better". You can't magic yourself competent. And however much we'd like to, it's hard to believe all home secretaries are genuinely idiots and everyone at the home office genuinely useless. More plausible to me is that we're asking them to do an impossible job. I have no faith in the Rwanda option. I doubt it will ever seriously happen. But at least they're not pretending the problem doesn't exist. If a future regime manages to deal with the backlog, promptly process applications and send back those who do not have a claim I will take this back.
Why can the Dutch process 95% of claims within 2 months? Are they magicians? Or do they have the political will and resources that our governments, mostly Tory, but even when new Labour still authoritarian within the Home Office, do not provide?
By all means fund it properly now specify what you are going to fund less than currently to make up the extra budget.
Well there's a billion or so already being spent every year keeping these folk in detention, and rather a lot promised to Rwanda for nothing very useful. A competently run Home Office along the lines suggested might actually cost us less.
That though is merely speculation, more efficient processing on the other hand may increase costs because more decide to come knowing they won't be waiting for years before they can work.
I am highly sceptical of "if we do this it might save us money" somehow everytime we end up spending more
And I'm highly sceptical of the utility of locking up a hundred thousand plus for years at a time for no good reason.
The current policies are both expensive and ineffective.
Where did I say currently what we have is good, just pointing out the call to properly fund comes with a cost.
Everyone on here is always demanding their pet cause be properly funded and no one ever goes and to fund it we can cut this or that
We have focussed obsessively on the short term cuts part of the equation for a long time so most of what can be cut there already has been, and beyond what is sustainable. Governments ignore the long term investements that can generate longer term and sustainable savings as they don't help their re-elections with the benefits coming 10-20 years down the line.
What you are left with is indeed few areas that are easy to cut quickly without causing damage and lots of areas where real investment will save money in the long term. People may not want to hear it but that is where we are.
Build more houses, train more doctors, fund the courts system, repair roads properly instead of covering over potholes, all these are simple examples where it should be obvious that spending more now is both the right thing to do, and cheaper over a lifetime.
You still need the money to spend it now
You cant raise taxes much further You can't borrow with no spending cuts as truss found
Its not I necessarily disagree with you but without the money to spend now its an idea going nowhere.
For now the only solution is
1) work out how much we can raise in tax as a maximum 2) work out how much it costs to fully fund everything 3) work out the priorities of what to full fund 4) cut the rest 5) as cost savings come through and not a moment before we can bring things back in dependent on priority
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Good to see that the C of E tradition for housing otherworldly eccentrics still flourishes.
I’m interested (as an atheist) as to how the Head Shed of a religion using a religious ceremony, in his number one venue, for recruitment is “hijacking”.
Isn’t that his job?
I'm more interested in how he thinks the coronation might convert anyone at all.
It really is a very odd idea.
Yes - "I was against the concept of thr monarchy, but the sheer magnificence of the ceremony won me over" - hard to imagine that's going to be a massive group.
It isn't trying to convert republicans to monarchists, the focus is more on converting agnostic monarchists to Christian monarchists from the Church of England's point of view (and Welby is on the evangelical wing of the Church of England after all).
Given about 2/3 of the UK population are monarchists still but only 47% of the UK population are now Christians that is nearly 20% of the UK population for the Church of England to target and only a minority of them will be from other faiths or confirmed atheists
Luke 18 comes to mind, for some reason. I wonder why?
22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. 23 And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich. 24 And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! 25 For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Yes and most of the foodbanks in England are provided by or supported by the Church of England.
Jesus didn't have a problem with wealth as long as it was used to help others, see the parable of the Good Samaritan, Thatcher's favourite
Where in the Parable of the Good Samaritan does it say he was wealthy? The point of the parable is that he’s from a disliked religious group.
The Samaritan had the funds to put the injured traveller up at an Inn.
Jesus was also a fan of prudent investment, see the Parable of the Talents
In 2022, almost half of small boat arrivals were from these 2 nationalities - Albanians (28%) and Afghans (20%), as shown in Figure 4. Albanians were more prominent from July to September 2022, whereas Afghans became more prominent from October to December 2022.
The majority of small boat arrivals claim asylum. In 2022, 90% (40,302 of 44,666 arrivals) claimed asylum or were recorded as a dependant on an asylum application. However, small boat arrivals account for less than half (45%) of the total number of people claiming asylum in the UK in 2022.
Most asylum claims from small boat arrivals are still awaiting a decision; more recent periods will naturally have a higher proportion of asylum applications awaiting a decision, as less time has passed to allow for applications to be processed. 97% (34,793) of small boat asylum applications in the latest year, or 83% (56,883) of all small boat asylum applications since 2018, are awaiting a decision.
Trouble is that quite a bit of what is known doesn't fit the narrative.
Based on what's known (and I don't know the answer to this) what is the proportion for each sex?
You'd expect based on pure need that a majority should rightly be female, but given other selection criteria is at play like who is prepared to jeopardise their safety on a dinghy, or who is prepared to pay people smugglers, that the opposite could be the case.
One of the data tables in the link breaks down the numbers by sex, and yes, the small boat people are overwhelmingly male.
The trouble is that the lack of safe routes for asylum claims from most countries means that the ones taking unsafe routes will be the physically stronger ones and the people more likely to be the neediest of the needy will be scared off. And there is a bit of the old ducking stool logic here; if people are able to cross in boats, they're not truly in need, and if they are truly in need, that's a shame but it's too late now.
Absolutely I completely agree with that.
David Cameron had the right solution nearly a decade ago, say no to people crossing over in boats but expand safe and humanitarian alternatives instead.
Unfortunately putting that right solution into action is easier said than done.
It’s not easy, no, but I think we can map out the beginning of a good roadmap to a solution…
I reckon Labour lead down around 4 percentage points since the New Year. Now around 19%
19% seems high now.
Nine firms have polls with fieldwork ending since last Thursday, their Con shares are 22-35, mean 28.6, median 29; Lab shares 43-49, mean 45.5, median 45.5.
Leads vary from 10-26, mean 16.5, median 15.
The leads fall into three groups, I would say: PeoplePolling, R&W and YouGov at 20+, Deltapoll at 10 and everyone else at 14-17.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
If getting the current system to work promptly and efficiently is "less plausible", then why do you have any faith that the Rwanda option will be executed well enough? If a succession of Conservative Home Secretaries are unable to enforce the existing rules, allowing a massive backlog to develop, why do you want to give them more powers? Enforce the existing rules, save money, allow those with valid asylum claims to get out of the system and into jobs where they can contribute to the country, and deport those without valid claims.
Promptly deporting individuals who do not have a valid asylum claim will deter people without valid asylum claims.
Fair points, and the answer is that I don't. But as advice, " dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim" seems to equate to "just be better". You can't magic yourself competent. And however much we'd like to, it's hard to believe all home secretaries are genuinely idiots and everyone at the home office genuinely useless. More plausible to me is that we're asking them to do an impossible job. I have no faith in the Rwanda option. I doubt it will ever seriously happen. But at least they're not pretending the problem doesn't exist. If a future regime manages to deal with the backlog, promptly process applications and send back those who do not have a claim I will take this back.
Why can the Dutch process 95% of claims within 2 months? Are they magicians? Or do they have the political will and resources that our governments, mostly Tory, but even when new Labour still authoritarian within the Home Office, do not provide?
By all means fund it properly now specify what you are going to fund less than currently to make up the extra budget.
Well there's a billion or so already being spent every year keeping these folk in detention, and rather a lot promised to Rwanda for nothing very useful. A competently run Home Office along the lines suggested might actually cost us less.
That though is merely speculation, more efficient processing on the other hand may increase costs because more decide to come knowing they won't be waiting for years before they can work.
I am highly sceptical of "if we do this it might save us money" somehow everytime we end up spending more
And I'm highly sceptical of the utility of locking up a hundred thousand plus for years at a time for no good reason.
The current policies are both expensive and ineffective.
Where did I say currently what we have is good, just pointing out the call to properly fund comes with a cost.
Everyone on here is always demanding their pet cause be properly funded and no one ever goes and to fund it we can cut this or that
We have focussed obsessively on the short term cuts part of the equation for a long time so most of what can be cut there already has been, and beyond what is sustainable. Governments ignore the long term investements that can generate longer term and sustainable savings as they don't help their re-elections with the benefits coming 10-20 years down the line.
What you are left with is indeed few areas that are easy to cut quickly without causing damage and lots of areas where real investment will save money in the long term. People may not want to hear it but that is where we are.
Build more houses, train more doctors, fund the courts system, repair roads properly instead of covering over potholes, all these are simple examples where it should be obvious that spending more now is both the right thing to do, and cheaper over a lifetime.
You still need the money to spend it now
You cant raise taxes much further You can't borrow with no spending cuts as truss found
Its not I necessarily disagree with you but without the money to spend now its an idea going nowhere.
For now the only solution is
1) work out how much we can raise in tax as a maximum 2) work out how much it costs to fully fund everything 3) work out the priorities of what to full fund 4) cut the rest 5) as cost savings come through and not a moment before we can bring things back in dependent on priority
You can raise taxes.
You can borrow, if you do so sensibly and with a clear plan for how you will see a return on the investment, which is what Truss didn’t do.
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Good to see that the C of E tradition for housing otherworldly eccentrics still flourishes.
I’m interested (as an atheist) as to how the Head Shed of a religion using a religious ceremony, in his number one venue, for recruitment is “hijacking”.
Isn’t that his job?
I'm more interested in how he thinks the coronation might convert anyone at all.
It really is a very odd idea.
Yes - "I was against the concept of thr monarchy, but the sheer magnificence of the ceremony won me over" - hard to imagine that's going to be a massive group.
It isn't trying to convert republicans to monarchists, the focus is more on converting agnostic monarchists to Christian monarchists from the Church of England's point of view (and Welby is on the evangelical wing of the Church of England after all).
Given about 2/3 of the UK population are monarchists still but only 47% of the UK population are now Christians that is nearly 20% of the UK population for the Church of England to target and only a minority of them will be from other faiths or confirmed atheists
Luke 18 comes to mind, for some reason. I wonder why?
22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. 23 And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich. 24 And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! 25 For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Yes and most of the foodbanks in England are provided by or supported by the Church of England.
Jesus didn't have a problem with wealth as long as it was used to help others, see the parable of the Good Samaritan, Thatcher's favourite
Where in the Parable of the Good Samaritan does it say he was wealthy? The point of the parable is that he’s from a disliked religious group.
The Samaritan had the funds to put the injured traveller up at an Inn.
Jesus was also a fan of prudent investment, see the Parable of the Talents
You don’t have to be wealthy to put someone up at an inn for the night.
Most interpretations of the Parable of the Talents do not see it as pro-wealth.
Deliberately walking closely behind someone as they walk home at night Making obscene or aggressive comments towards a person in the street Making obscene or offensive gestures towards a person in the street Obstructing someone's path Driving or riding a vehicle slowly near someone making a journey
Some of those seem very difficult to very difficult to pin down very definite definitions for. What is an offensive gesture? Is it, what the person on the receiving end deems it to be?
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
If getting the current system to work promptly and efficiently is "less plausible", then why do you have any faith that the Rwanda option will be executed well enough? If a succession of Conservative Home Secretaries are unable to enforce the existing rules, allowing a massive backlog to develop, why do you want to give them more powers? Enforce the existing rules, save money, allow those with valid asylum claims to get out of the system and into jobs where they can contribute to the country, and deport those without valid claims.
Promptly deporting individuals who do not have a valid asylum claim will deter people without valid asylum claims.
Fair points, and the answer is that I don't. But as advice, " dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim" seems to equate to "just be better". You can't magic yourself competent. And however much we'd like to, it's hard to believe all home secretaries are genuinely idiots and everyone at the home office genuinely useless. More plausible to me is that we're asking them to do an impossible job. I have no faith in the Rwanda option. I doubt it will ever seriously happen. But at least they're not pretending the problem doesn't exist. If a future regime manages to deal with the backlog, promptly process applications and send back those who do not have a claim I will take this back.
Why can the Dutch process 95% of claims within 2 months? Are they magicians? Or do they have the political will and resources that our governments, mostly Tory, but even when new Labour still authoritarian within the Home Office, do not provide?
By all means fund it properly now specify what you are going to fund less than currently to make up the extra budget.
Well there's a billion or so already being spent every year keeping these folk in detention, and rather a lot promised to Rwanda for nothing very useful. A competently run Home Office along the lines suggested might actually cost us less.
That though is merely speculation, more efficient processing on the other hand may increase costs because more decide to come knowing they won't be waiting for years before they can work.
I am highly sceptical of "if we do this it might save us money" somehow everytime we end up spending more
And I'm highly sceptical of the utility of locking up a hundred thousand plus for years at a time for no good reason.
The current policies are both expensive and ineffective.
Where did I say currently what we have is good, just pointing out the call to properly fund comes with a cost.
Everyone on here is always demanding their pet cause be properly funded and no one ever goes and to fund it we can cut this or that
We have focussed obsessively on the short term cuts part of the equation for a long time so most of what can be cut there already has been, and beyond what is sustainable. Governments ignore the long term investements that can generate longer term and sustainable savings as they don't help their re-elections with the benefits coming 10-20 years down the line.
What you are left with is indeed few areas that are easy to cut quickly without causing damage and lots of areas where real investment will save money in the long term. People may not want to hear it but that is where we are.
Build more houses, train more doctors, fund the courts system, repair roads properly instead of covering over potholes, all these are simple examples where it should be obvious that spending more now is both the right thing to do, and cheaper over a lifetime.
You still need the money to spend it now
You cant raise taxes much further You can't borrow with no spending cuts as truss found
Its not I necessarily disagree with you but without the money to spend now its an idea going nowhere.
For now the only solution is
1) work out how much we can raise in tax as a maximum 2) work out how much it costs to fully fund everything 3) work out the priorities of what to full fund 4) cut the rest 5) as cost savings come through and not a moment before we can bring things back in dependent on priority
Covid showed that the govt budgets are a lot more flexible than people assumed. To be fair the Truss experiment equally showed that markets will be brutal if they do not believe or understand why budgets are being stretched.
I accept it would not be trivial to assure the markets that this is the right course for the economy but with detailed budgeting and good communication (both of which Truss completely shied away from) I don't think it is unrealistic either.
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Good to see that the C of E tradition for housing otherworldly eccentrics still flourishes.
I’m interested (as an atheist) as to how the Head Shed of a religion using a religious ceremony, in his number one venue, for recruitment is “hijacking”.
Isn’t that his job?
I'm more interested in how he thinks the coronation might convert anyone at all.
It really is a very odd idea.
Yes - "I was against the concept of thr monarchy, but the sheer magnificence of the ceremony won me over" - hard to imagine that's going to be a massive group.
It isn't trying to convert republicans to monarchists, the focus is more on converting agnostic monarchists to Christian monarchists from the Church of England's point of view (and Welby is on the evangelical wing of the Church of England after all).
Given about 2/3 of the UK population are monarchists still but only 47% of the UK population are now Christians that is nearly 20% of the UK population for the Church of England to target and only a minority of them will be from other faiths or confirmed atheists
6% say they are actually practising.
Less than 1% attend Church on a typical week.
47% ticked a box.
5% attend a Christian church every week, whether Anglican, Roman Catholic or non Anglican evangelical. Roman Catholics have the highest attendance rate and Pentecostals the highest attendance growth.
Though more go once you include those who go only for Christmas, Easter or Mothering Sunday, weddings, baptisms and funerals
I reckon Labour lead down around 4 percentage points since the New Year. Now around 19%
19% seems high now.
Nine firms have polls with fieldwork ending since last Thursday, their Con shares are 22-35, mean 28.6, median 29; Lab shares 43-49, mean 45.5, median 45.5.
Leads vary from 10-26, mean 16.5, median 15.
The leads fall into three groups, I would say: PeoplePolling, R&W and YouGov at 20+, Deltapoll at 10 and everyone else at 14-17.
I think anecdotes are very helpful now. There is a visceral hatred for the Tories now that is only matched by the 1992 to 7 period. I would think most of the dont knows in the polls are unlikely to swing tory more that they see no other party to vote for.
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Good to see that the C of E tradition for housing otherworldly eccentrics still flourishes.
I’m interested (as an atheist) as to how the Head Shed of a religion using a religious ceremony, in his number one venue, for recruitment is “hijacking”.
Isn’t that his job?
I'm more interested in how he thinks the coronation might convert anyone at all.
It really is a very odd idea.
Yes - "I was against the concept of thr monarchy, but the sheer magnificence of the ceremony won me over" - hard to imagine that's going to be a massive group.
It isn't trying to convert republicans to monarchists, the focus is more on converting agnostic monarchists to Christian monarchists from the Church of England's point of view (and Welby is on the evangelical wing of the Church of England after all).
Given about 2/3 of the UK population are monarchists still but only 47% of the UK population are now Christians that is nearly 20% of the UK population for the Church of England to target and only a minority of them will be from other faiths or confirmed atheists
Luke 18 comes to mind, for some reason. I wonder why?
22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. 23 And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich. 24 And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! 25 For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Yes and most of the foodbanks in England are provided by or supported by the Church of England.
Jesus didn't have a problem with wealth as long as it was used to help others, see the parable of the Good Samaritan, Thatcher's favourite
Where in the Parable of the Good Samaritan does it say he was wealthy? The point of the parable is that he’s from a disliked religious group.
The Samaritan had the funds to put the injured traveller up at an Inn.
Jesus was also a fan of prudent investment, see the Parable of the Talents
You don’t have to be wealthy to put someone up at an inn for the night.
Most interpretations of the Parable of the Talents do not see it as pro-wealth.
You certainly can't have no money to do it either.
Leftwing interpretations may not but it is obviously pro savings and prudent investment and not sloth
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
If getting the current system to work promptly and efficiently is "less plausible", then why do you have any faith that the Rwanda option will be executed well enough? If a succession of Conservative Home Secretaries are unable to enforce the existing rules, allowing a massive backlog to develop, why do you want to give them more powers? Enforce the existing rules, save money, allow those with valid asylum claims to get out of the system and into jobs where they can contribute to the country, and deport those without valid claims.
Promptly deporting individuals who do not have a valid asylum claim will deter people without valid asylum claims.
Fair points, and the answer is that I don't. But as advice, " dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim" seems to equate to "just be better". You can't magic yourself competent. And however much we'd like to, it's hard to believe all home secretaries are genuinely idiots and everyone at the home office genuinely useless. More plausible to me is that we're asking them to do an impossible job. I have no faith in the Rwanda option. I doubt it will ever seriously happen. But at least they're not pretending the problem doesn't exist. If a future regime manages to deal with the backlog, promptly process applications and send back those who do not have a claim I will take this back.
Why can the Dutch process 95% of claims within 2 months? Are they magicians? Or do they have the political will and resources that our governments, mostly Tory, but even when new Labour still authoritarian within the Home Office, do not provide?
By all means fund it properly now specify what you are going to fund less than currently to make up the extra budget.
Well there's a billion or so already being spent every year keeping these folk in detention, and rather a lot promised to Rwanda for nothing very useful. A competently run Home Office along the lines suggested might actually cost us less.
That though is merely speculation, more efficient processing on the other hand may increase costs because more decide to come knowing they won't be waiting for years before they can work.
I am highly sceptical of "if we do this it might save us money" somehow everytime we end up spending more
And I'm highly sceptical of the utility of locking up a hundred thousand plus for years at a time for no good reason.
The current policies are both expensive and ineffective.
Where did I say currently what we have is good, just pointing out the call to properly fund comes with a cost.
Everyone on here is always demanding their pet cause be properly funded and no one ever goes and to fund it we can cut this or that
We have focussed obsessively on the short term cuts part of the equation for a long time so most of what can be cut there already has been, and beyond what is sustainable. Governments ignore the long term investements that can generate longer term and sustainable savings as they don't help their re-elections with the benefits coming 10-20 years down the line.
What you are left with is indeed few areas that are easy to cut quickly without causing damage and lots of areas where real investment will save money in the long term. People may not want to hear it but that is where we are.
Build more houses, train more doctors, fund the courts system, repair roads properly instead of covering over potholes, all these are simple examples where it should be obvious that spending more now is both the right thing to do, and cheaper over a lifetime.
You still need the money to spend it now
You cant raise taxes much further You can't borrow with no spending cuts as truss found
Its not I necessarily disagree with you but without the money to spend now its an idea going nowhere.
For now the only solution is
1) work out how much we can raise in tax as a maximum 2) work out how much it costs to fully fund everything 3) work out the priorities of what to full fund 4) cut the rest 5) as cost savings come through and not a moment before we can bring things back in dependent on priority
You can raise taxes.
You can borrow, if you do so sensibly and with a clear plan for how you will see a return on the investment, which is what Truss didn’t do.
No realistically you can't raise taxes much further, certainly not basic rate tax and there aren't enough of the rich to make more than a few billion. I am pretty sure we are getting towards the tipping point of the laffer curve that way and also damn sure even a 1% of basic rate tax is going to turn millions of JAMS into not making ends meet. Sure most on this board could afford it....the minimum wage guy not so much.
Fed up with the just raise taxes people because it really isn't that possible we are already paying more in tax than anytime in the last 30 years
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Good to see that the C of E tradition for housing otherworldly eccentrics still flourishes.
I’m interested (as an atheist) as to how the Head Shed of a religion using a religious ceremony, in his number one venue, for recruitment is “hijacking”.
Isn’t that his job?
I'm more interested in how he thinks the coronation might convert anyone at all.
It really is a very odd idea.
Yes - "I was against the concept of thr monarchy, but the sheer magnificence of the ceremony won me over" - hard to imagine that's going to be a massive group.
It isn't trying to convert republicans to monarchists, the focus is more on converting agnostic monarchists to Christian monarchists from the Church of England's point of view (and Welby is on the evangelical wing of the Church of England after all).
Given about 2/3 of the UK population are monarchists still but only 47% of the UK population are now Christians that is nearly 20% of the UK population for the Church of England to target and only a minority of them will be from other faiths or confirmed atheists
Luke 18 comes to mind, for some reason. I wonder why?
22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. 23 And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich. 24 And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! 25 For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Yes and most of the foodbanks in England are provided by or supported by the Church of England.
Jesus didn't have a problem with wealth as long as it was used to help others, see the parable of the Good Samaritan, Thatcher's favourite
Where in the Parable of the Good Samaritan does it say he was wealthy? The point of the parable is that he’s from a disliked religious group.
The Samaritan had the funds to put the injured traveller up at an Inn.
Jesus was also a fan of prudent investment, see the Parable of the Talents
You don’t have to be wealthy to put someone up at an inn for the night.
Most interpretations of the Parable of the Talents do not see it as pro-wealth.
You certainly can't have no money to do it either.
Leftwing interpretations may not but it is obvious pro savings and prudent investment and not sloth
No-one was saying that Luke 18 precludes having any money at all or that it opposes savings and prudent investment, so put that straw man away.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
If getting the current system to work promptly and efficiently is "less plausible", then why do you have any faith that the Rwanda option will be executed well enough? If a succession of Conservative Home Secretaries are unable to enforce the existing rules, allowing a massive backlog to develop, why do you want to give them more powers? Enforce the existing rules, save money, allow those with valid asylum claims to get out of the system and into jobs where they can contribute to the country, and deport those without valid claims.
Promptly deporting individuals who do not have a valid asylum claim will deter people without valid asylum claims.
Fair points, and the answer is that I don't. But as advice, " dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim" seems to equate to "just be better". You can't magic yourself competent. And however much we'd like to, it's hard to believe all home secretaries are genuinely idiots and everyone at the home office genuinely useless. More plausible to me is that we're asking them to do an impossible job. I have no faith in the Rwanda option. I doubt it will ever seriously happen. But at least they're not pretending the problem doesn't exist. If a future regime manages to deal with the backlog, promptly process applications and send back those who do not have a claim I will take this back.
Why can the Dutch process 95% of claims within 2 months? Are they magicians? Or do they have the political will and resources that our governments, mostly Tory, but even when new Labour still authoritarian within the Home Office, do not provide?
By all means fund it properly now specify what you are going to fund less than currently to make up the extra budget.
Well there's a billion or so already being spent every year keeping these folk in detention, and rather a lot promised to Rwanda for nothing very useful. A competently run Home Office along the lines suggested might actually cost us less.
That though is merely speculation, more efficient processing on the other hand may increase costs because more decide to come knowing they won't be waiting for years before they can work.
I am highly sceptical of "if we do this it might save us money" somehow everytime we end up spending more
And I'm highly sceptical of the utility of locking up a hundred thousand plus for years at a time for no good reason.
The current policies are both expensive and ineffective.
Where did I say currently what we have is good, just pointing out the call to properly fund comes with a cost.
Everyone on here is always demanding their pet cause be properly funded and no one ever goes and to fund it we can cut this or that
We have focussed obsessively on the short term cuts part of the equation for a long time so most of what can be cut there already has been, and beyond what is sustainable. Governments ignore the long term investements that can generate longer term and sustainable savings as they don't help their re-elections with the benefits coming 10-20 years down the line.
What you are left with is indeed few areas that are easy to cut quickly without causing damage and lots of areas where real investment will save money in the long term. People may not want to hear it but that is where we are.
Build more houses, train more doctors, fund the courts system, repair roads properly instead of covering over potholes, all these are simple examples where it should be obvious that spending more now is both the right thing to do, and cheaper over a lifetime.
You still need the money to spend it now
You cant raise taxes much further You can't borrow with no spending cuts as truss found
Its not I necessarily disagree with you but without the money to spend now its an idea going nowhere.
For now the only solution is
1) work out how much we can raise in tax as a maximum 2) work out how much it costs to fully fund everything 3) work out the priorities of what to full fund 4) cut the rest 5) as cost savings come through and not a moment before we can bring things back in dependent on priority
You can raise taxes.
You can borrow, if you do so sensibly and with a clear plan for how you will see a return on the investment, which is what Truss didn’t do.
No realistically you can't raise taxes much further, certainly not basic rate tax and there aren't enough of the rich to make more than a few billion. I am pretty sure we are getting towards the tipping point of the laffer curve that way and also damn sure even a 1% of basic rate tax is going to turn millions of JAMS into not making ends meet. Sure most on this board could afford it....the minimum wage guy not so much.
Fed up with the just raise taxes people because it really isn't that possible we are already paying more in tax than anytime in the last 30 years
High taxes are largely down to our demographics, not our choices. Could change that a bit with more immigration but thats not popular either (we won't get less whatever any politician promises or however much they talk about Rwanda and invasions).
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
If getting the current system to work promptly and efficiently is "less plausible", then why do you have any faith that the Rwanda option will be executed well enough? If a succession of Conservative Home Secretaries are unable to enforce the existing rules, allowing a massive backlog to develop, why do you want to give them more powers? Enforce the existing rules, save money, allow those with valid asylum claims to get out of the system and into jobs where they can contribute to the country, and deport those without valid claims.
Promptly deporting individuals who do not have a valid asylum claim will deter people without valid asylum claims.
Fair points, and the answer is that I don't. But as advice, " dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim" seems to equate to "just be better". You can't magic yourself competent. And however much we'd like to, it's hard to believe all home secretaries are genuinely idiots and everyone at the home office genuinely useless. More plausible to me is that we're asking them to do an impossible job. I have no faith in the Rwanda option. I doubt it will ever seriously happen. But at least they're not pretending the problem doesn't exist. If a future regime manages to deal with the backlog, promptly process applications and send back those who do not have a claim I will take this back.
Why can the Dutch process 95% of claims within 2 months? Are they magicians? Or do they have the political will and resources that our governments, mostly Tory, but even when new Labour still authoritarian within the Home Office, do not provide?
By all means fund it properly now specify what you are going to fund less than currently to make up the extra budget.
Well there's a billion or so already being spent every year keeping these folk in detention, and rather a lot promised to Rwanda for nothing very useful. A competently run Home Office along the lines suggested might actually cost us less.
That though is merely speculation, more efficient processing on the other hand may increase costs because more decide to come knowing they won't be waiting for years before they can work.
I am highly sceptical of "if we do this it might save us money" somehow everytime we end up spending more
And I'm highly sceptical of the utility of locking up a hundred thousand plus for years at a time for no good reason.
The current policies are both expensive and ineffective.
Where did I say currently what we have is good, just pointing out the call to properly fund comes with a cost.
Everyone on here is always demanding their pet cause be properly funded and no one ever goes and to fund it we can cut this or that
We have focussed obsessively on the short term cuts part of the equation for a long time so most of what can be cut there already has been, and beyond what is sustainable. Governments ignore the long term investements that can generate longer term and sustainable savings as they don't help their re-elections with the benefits coming 10-20 years down the line.
What you are left with is indeed few areas that are easy to cut quickly without causing damage and lots of areas where real investment will save money in the long term. People may not want to hear it but that is where we are.
Build more houses, train more doctors, fund the courts system, repair roads properly instead of covering over potholes, all these are simple examples where it should be obvious that spending more now is both the right thing to do, and cheaper over a lifetime.
You still need the money to spend it now
You cant raise taxes much further You can't borrow with no spending cuts as truss found
Its not I necessarily disagree with you but without the money to spend now its an idea going nowhere.
For now the only solution is
1) work out how much we can raise in tax as a maximum 2) work out how much it costs to fully fund everything 3) work out the priorities of what to full fund 4) cut the rest 5) as cost savings come through and not a moment before we can bring things back in dependent on priority
You can raise taxes.
You can borrow, if you do so sensibly and with a clear plan for how you will see a return on the investment, which is what Truss didn’t do.
No realistically you can't raise taxes much further, certainly not basic rate tax and there aren't enough of the rich to make more than a few billion. I am pretty sure we are getting towards the tipping point of the laffer curve that way and also damn sure even a 1% of basic rate tax is going to turn millions of JAMS into not making ends meet. Sure most on this board could afford it....the minimum wage guy not so much.
Fed up with the just raise taxes people because it really isn't that possible we are already paying more in tax than anytime in the last 30 years
We are paying high taxes and getting poor services. I largely blame the party in power for the last 13 years and hope to see them voted out at the next general election.
Deliberately walking closely behind someone as they walk home at night Making obscene or aggressive comments towards a person in the street Making obscene or offensive gestures towards a person in the street Obstructing someone's path Driving or riding a vehicle slowly near someone making a journey
Some of those seem very difficult to very difficult to pin down very definite definitions for. What is an offensive gesture? Is it, what the person on the receiving end deems it to be?
What if you're walking close behind them because they're walking so bloody slowly that they're obstructing your path?
The ‘ordinary’ family at No 35: suspected Russian spies await trial in Slovenia https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/24/suspected-russian-spies-trial-slovenia ...On Thursday, the foreign minister, Tanja Fajon, corroborated these claims, telling reporters the arrested couple were in fact Russian citizens, rather than Argentinians.
Unlike “legal” Russian intelligence officers, who are disguised as diplomats at Russian embassies across the world, the illegals operate without any visible links to Moscow. They are trained for years to impersonate foreigners and then sent abroad to gather intelligence. Many have children, who are raised in the cover identity without any idea that their parents are really Russian...
I reckon Labour lead down around 4 percentage points since the New Year. Now around 19%
19% seems high now.
Nine firms have polls with fieldwork ending since last Thursday, their Con shares are 22-35, mean 28.6, median 29; Lab shares 43-49, mean 45.5, median 45.5.
Leads vary from 10-26, mean 16.5, median 15.
The leads fall into three groups, I would say: PeoplePolling, R&W and YouGov at 20+, Deltapoll at 10 and everyone else at 14-17.
I think anecdotes are very helpful now. There is a visceral hatred for the Tories now that is only matched by the 1992 to 7 period. I would think most of the dont knows in the polls are unlikely to swing tory more that they see no other party to vote for.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
If getting the current system to work promptly and efficiently is "less plausible", then why do you have any faith that the Rwanda option will be executed well enough? If a succession of Conservative Home Secretaries are unable to enforce the existing rules, allowing a massive backlog to develop, why do you want to give them more powers? Enforce the existing rules, save money, allow those with valid asylum claims to get out of the system and into jobs where they can contribute to the country, and deport those without valid claims.
Promptly deporting individuals who do not have a valid asylum claim will deter people without valid asylum claims.
Fair points, and the answer is that I don't. But as advice, " dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim" seems to equate to "just be better". You can't magic yourself competent. And however much we'd like to, it's hard to believe all home secretaries are genuinely idiots and everyone at the home office genuinely useless. More plausible to me is that we're asking them to do an impossible job. I have no faith in the Rwanda option. I doubt it will ever seriously happen. But at least they're not pretending the problem doesn't exist. If a future regime manages to deal with the backlog, promptly process applications and send back those who do not have a claim I will take this back.
Why can the Dutch process 95% of claims within 2 months? Are they magicians? Or do they have the political will and resources that our governments, mostly Tory, but even when new Labour still authoritarian within the Home Office, do not provide?
By all means fund it properly now specify what you are going to fund less than currently to make up the extra budget.
Well there's a billion or so already being spent every year keeping these folk in detention, and rather a lot promised to Rwanda for nothing very useful. A competently run Home Office along the lines suggested might actually cost us less.
That though is merely speculation, more efficient processing on the other hand may increase costs because more decide to come knowing they won't be waiting for years before they can work.
I am highly sceptical of "if we do this it might save us money" somehow everytime we end up spending more
And I'm highly sceptical of the utility of locking up a hundred thousand plus for years at a time for no good reason.
The current policies are both expensive and ineffective.
Where did I say currently what we have is good, just pointing out the call to properly fund comes with a cost.
Everyone on here is always demanding their pet cause be properly funded and no one ever goes and to fund it we can cut this or that
We have focussed obsessively on the short term cuts part of the equation for a long time so most of what can be cut there already has been, and beyond what is sustainable. Governments ignore the long term investements that can generate longer term and sustainable savings as they don't help their re-elections with the benefits coming 10-20 years down the line.
What you are left with is indeed few areas that are easy to cut quickly without causing damage and lots of areas where real investment will save money in the long term. People may not want to hear it but that is where we are.
Build more houses, train more doctors, fund the courts system, repair roads properly instead of covering over potholes, all these are simple examples where it should be obvious that spending more now is both the right thing to do, and cheaper over a lifetime.
You still need the money to spend it now
You cant raise taxes much further You can't borrow with no spending cuts as truss found
Its not I necessarily disagree with you but without the money to spend now its an idea going nowhere.
For now the only solution is
1) work out how much we can raise in tax as a maximum 2) work out how much it costs to fully fund everything 3) work out the priorities of what to full fund 4) cut the rest 5) as cost savings come through and not a moment before we can bring things back in dependent on priority
You can raise taxes.
You can borrow, if you do so sensibly and with a clear plan for how you will see a return on the investment, which is what Truss didn’t do.
No realistically you can't raise taxes much further, certainly not basic rate tax and there aren't enough of the rich to make more than a few billion. I am pretty sure we are getting towards the tipping point of the laffer curve that way and also damn sure even a 1% of basic rate tax is going to turn millions of JAMS into not making ends meet. Sure most on this board could afford it....the minimum wage guy not so much.
Fed up with the just raise taxes people because it really isn't that possible we are already paying more in tax than anytime in the last 30 years
We are paying high taxes and getting poor services. I largely blame the party in power for the last 13 years and hope to see them voted out at the next general election.
I largely blame all parties of the last 30 years and all the middle classed sots wanting their own bunce from the system which is how we ended up with tax credits going to people with higher rate incomes and such like. The majority of the country existing on wages of mid 20k isn't that concerned about your social justice conscience for foreign aid and refugees, the arts, diversity training officers etc, they want services that work and enough left out of their paypacket to actually live.
Then along come people like most pb posters and just wave it away with "oh just raise tax" because you can afford it....maybe you will only eat out 3 nights a week instead of 4......they on the other hand will skip heating or eating because the tax is raised
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
If getting the current system to work promptly and efficiently is "less plausible", then why do you have any faith that the Rwanda option will be executed well enough? If a succession of Conservative Home Secretaries are unable to enforce the existing rules, allowing a massive backlog to develop, why do you want to give them more powers? Enforce the existing rules, save money, allow those with valid asylum claims to get out of the system and into jobs where they can contribute to the country, and deport those without valid claims.
Promptly deporting individuals who do not have a valid asylum claim will deter people without valid asylum claims.
Fair points, and the answer is that I don't. But as advice, " dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim" seems to equate to "just be better". You can't magic yourself competent. And however much we'd like to, it's hard to believe all home secretaries are genuinely idiots and everyone at the home office genuinely useless. More plausible to me is that we're asking them to do an impossible job. I have no faith in the Rwanda option. I doubt it will ever seriously happen. But at least they're not pretending the problem doesn't exist. If a future regime manages to deal with the backlog, promptly process applications and send back those who do not have a claim I will take this back.
Why can the Dutch process 95% of claims within 2 months? Are they magicians? Or do they have the political will and resources that our governments, mostly Tory, but even when new Labour still authoritarian within the Home Office, do not provide?
By all means fund it properly now specify what you are going to fund less than currently to make up the extra budget.
Well there's a billion or so already being spent every year keeping these folk in detention, and rather a lot promised to Rwanda for nothing very useful. A competently run Home Office along the lines suggested might actually cost us less.
That though is merely speculation, more efficient processing on the other hand may increase costs because more decide to come knowing they won't be waiting for years before they can work.
I am highly sceptical of "if we do this it might save us money" somehow everytime we end up spending more
And I'm highly sceptical of the utility of locking up a hundred thousand plus for years at a time for no good reason.
The current policies are both expensive and ineffective.
Where did I say currently what we have is good, just pointing out the call to properly fund comes with a cost.
Everyone on here is always demanding their pet cause be properly funded and no one ever goes and to fund it we can cut this or that
We have focussed obsessively on the short term cuts part of the equation for a long time so most of what can be cut there already has been, and beyond what is sustainable. Governments ignore the long term investements that can generate longer term and sustainable savings as they don't help their re-elections with the benefits coming 10-20 years down the line.
What you are left with is indeed few areas that are easy to cut quickly without causing damage and lots of areas where real investment will save money in the long term. People may not want to hear it but that is where we are.
Build more houses, train more doctors, fund the courts system, repair roads properly instead of covering over potholes, all these are simple examples where it should be obvious that spending more now is both the right thing to do, and cheaper over a lifetime.
You still need the money to spend it now
You cant raise taxes much further You can't borrow with no spending cuts as truss found
Its not I necessarily disagree with you but without the money to spend now its an idea going nowhere.
For now the only solution is
1) work out how much we can raise in tax as a maximum 2) work out how much it costs to fully fund everything 3) work out the priorities of what to full fund 4) cut the rest 5) as cost savings come through and not a moment before we can bring things back in dependent on priority
You can raise taxes.
You can borrow, if you do so sensibly and with a clear plan for how you will see a return on the investment, which is what Truss didn’t do.
Besides, there are other rich countries that prosper and thrive at much higher rates of tax;
This isn't to say that taxation is an automatic good. But if it is the case that the UK is such a delicate flower that we simply can't support more government spending or taxation, that feels like a problem to investigate and (if possible) fix.
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Good to see that the C of E tradition for housing otherworldly eccentrics still flourishes.
I’m interested (as an atheist) as to how the Head Shed of a religion using a religious ceremony, in his number one venue, for recruitment is “hijacking”.
Isn’t that his job?
I'm more interested in how he thinks the coronation might convert anyone at all.
It really is a very odd idea.
Yes - "I was against the concept of thr monarchy, but the sheer magnificence of the ceremony won me over" - hard to imagine that's going to be a massive group.
It isn't trying to convert republicans to monarchists, the focus is more on converting agnostic monarchists to Christian monarchists from the Church of England's point of view (and Welby is on the evangelical wing of the Church of England after all).
Given about 2/3 of the UK population are monarchists still but only 47% of the UK population are now Christians that is nearly 20% of the UK population for the Church of England to target and only a minority of them will be from other faiths or confirmed atheists
6% say they are actually practising.
Less than 1% attend Church on a typical week.
47% ticked a box.
5% attend a Christian church every week, whether Anglican, Roman Catholic or non Anglican evangelical. Roman Catholics have the highest attendance rate and Pentecostals the highest attendance growth.
Though more go once you include those who go only for Christmas, Easter or Mothering Sunday, weddings, baptisms and funerals
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
If getting the current system to work promptly and efficiently is "less plausible", then why do you have any faith that the Rwanda option will be executed well enough? If a succession of Conservative Home Secretaries are unable to enforce the existing rules, allowing a massive backlog to develop, why do you want to give them more powers? Enforce the existing rules, save money, allow those with valid asylum claims to get out of the system and into jobs where they can contribute to the country, and deport those without valid claims.
Promptly deporting individuals who do not have a valid asylum claim will deter people without valid asylum claims.
Fair points, and the answer is that I don't. But as advice, " dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim" seems to equate to "just be better". You can't magic yourself competent. And however much we'd like to, it's hard to believe all home secretaries are genuinely idiots and everyone at the home office genuinely useless. More plausible to me is that we're asking them to do an impossible job. I have no faith in the Rwanda option. I doubt it will ever seriously happen. But at least they're not pretending the problem doesn't exist. If a future regime manages to deal with the backlog, promptly process applications and send back those who do not have a claim I will take this back.
Why can the Dutch process 95% of claims within 2 months? Are they magicians? Or do they have the political will and resources that our governments, mostly Tory, but even when new Labour still authoritarian within the Home Office, do not provide?
By all means fund it properly now specify what you are going to fund less than currently to make up the extra budget.
Well there's a billion or so already being spent every year keeping these folk in detention, and rather a lot promised to Rwanda for nothing very useful. A competently run Home Office along the lines suggested might actually cost us less.
That though is merely speculation, more efficient processing on the other hand may increase costs because more decide to come knowing they won't be waiting for years before they can work.
I am highly sceptical of "if we do this it might save us money" somehow everytime we end up spending more
And I'm highly sceptical of the utility of locking up a hundred thousand plus for years at a time for no good reason.
The current policies are both expensive and ineffective.
Where did I say currently what we have is good, just pointing out the call to properly fund comes with a cost.
Everyone on here is always demanding their pet cause be properly funded and no one ever goes and to fund it we can cut this or that
We have focussed obsessively on the short term cuts part of the equation for a long time so most of what can be cut there already has been, and beyond what is sustainable. Governments ignore the long term investements that can generate longer term and sustainable savings as they don't help their re-elections with the benefits coming 10-20 years down the line.
What you are left with is indeed few areas that are easy to cut quickly without causing damage and lots of areas where real investment will save money in the long term. People may not want to hear it but that is where we are.
Build more houses, train more doctors, fund the courts system, repair roads properly instead of covering over potholes, all these are simple examples where it should be obvious that spending more now is both the right thing to do, and cheaper over a lifetime.
You still need the money to spend it now
You cant raise taxes much further You can't borrow with no spending cuts as truss found
Its not I necessarily disagree with you but without the money to spend now its an idea going nowhere.
For now the only solution is
1) work out how much we can raise in tax as a maximum 2) work out how much it costs to fully fund everything 3) work out the priorities of what to full fund 4) cut the rest 5) as cost savings come through and not a moment before we can bring things back in dependent on priority
You can raise taxes.
You can borrow, if you do so sensibly and with a clear plan for how you will see a return on the investment, which is what Truss didn’t do.
No realistically you can't raise taxes much further, certainly not basic rate tax and there aren't enough of the rich to make more than a few billion. I am pretty sure we are getting towards the tipping point of the laffer curve that way and also damn sure even a 1% of basic rate tax is going to turn millions of JAMS into not making ends meet. Sure most on this board could afford it....the minimum wage guy not so much.
Fed up with the just raise taxes people because it really isn't that possible we are already paying more in tax than anytime in the last 30 years
We are paying high taxes and getting poor services. I largely blame the party in power for the last 13 years and hope to see them voted out at the next general election.
I largely blame all parties of the last 30 years and all the middle classed sots wanting their own bunce from the system which is how we ended up with tax credits going to people with higher rate incomes and such like. The majority of the country existing on wages of mid 20k isn't that concerned about your social justice conscience for foreign aid and refugees, the arts, diversity training officers etc, they want services that work and enough left out of their paypacket to actually live.
Then along come people like most pb posters and just wave it away with "oh just raise tax" because you can afford it....maybe you will only eat out 3 nights a week instead of 4......they on the other hand will skip heating or eating because the tax is raised
What proportion of the budget gos on foreign aid, refugees, the arts and diversity training officers? If you don’t agree with that spending, fair enough, but you’re talking about small change.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
If getting the current system to work promptly and efficiently is "less plausible", then why do you have any faith that the Rwanda option will be executed well enough? If a succession of Conservative Home Secretaries are unable to enforce the existing rules, allowing a massive backlog to develop, why do you want to give them more powers? Enforce the existing rules, save money, allow those with valid asylum claims to get out of the system and into jobs where they can contribute to the country, and deport those without valid claims.
Promptly deporting individuals who do not have a valid asylum claim will deter people without valid asylum claims.
Fair points, and the answer is that I don't. But as advice, " dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim" seems to equate to "just be better". You can't magic yourself competent. And however much we'd like to, it's hard to believe all home secretaries are genuinely idiots and everyone at the home office genuinely useless. More plausible to me is that we're asking them to do an impossible job. I have no faith in the Rwanda option. I doubt it will ever seriously happen. But at least they're not pretending the problem doesn't exist. If a future regime manages to deal with the backlog, promptly process applications and send back those who do not have a claim I will take this back.
Why can the Dutch process 95% of claims within 2 months? Are they magicians? Or do they have the political will and resources that our governments, mostly Tory, but even when new Labour still authoritarian within the Home Office, do not provide?
By all means fund it properly now specify what you are going to fund less than currently to make up the extra budget.
Well there's a billion or so already being spent every year keeping these folk in detention, and rather a lot promised to Rwanda for nothing very useful. A competently run Home Office along the lines suggested might actually cost us less.
That though is merely speculation, more efficient processing on the other hand may increase costs because more decide to come knowing they won't be waiting for years before they can work.
I am highly sceptical of "if we do this it might save us money" somehow everytime we end up spending more
And I'm highly sceptical of the utility of locking up a hundred thousand plus for years at a time for no good reason.
The current policies are both expensive and ineffective.
Where did I say currently what we have is good, just pointing out the call to properly fund comes with a cost.
Everyone on here is always demanding their pet cause be properly funded and no one ever goes and to fund it we can cut this or that
We have focussed obsessively on the short term cuts part of the equation for a long time so most of what can be cut there already has been, and beyond what is sustainable. Governments ignore the long term investements that can generate longer term and sustainable savings as they don't help their re-elections with the benefits coming 10-20 years down the line.
What you are left with is indeed few areas that are easy to cut quickly without causing damage and lots of areas where real investment will save money in the long term. People may not want to hear it but that is where we are.
Build more houses, train more doctors, fund the courts system, repair roads properly instead of covering over potholes, all these are simple examples where it should be obvious that spending more now is both the right thing to do, and cheaper over a lifetime.
You still need the money to spend it now
You cant raise taxes much further You can't borrow with no spending cuts as truss found
Its not I necessarily disagree with you but without the money to spend now its an idea going nowhere.
For now the only solution is
1) work out how much we can raise in tax as a maximum 2) work out how much it costs to fully fund everything 3) work out the priorities of what to full fund 4) cut the rest 5) as cost savings come through and not a moment before we can bring things back in dependent on priority
You can raise taxes.
You can borrow, if you do so sensibly and with a clear plan for how you will see a return on the investment, which is what Truss didn’t do.
No realistically you can't raise taxes much further, certainly not basic rate tax and there aren't enough of the rich to make more than a few billion. I am pretty sure we are getting towards the tipping point of the laffer curve that way and also damn sure even a 1% of basic rate tax is going to turn millions of JAMS into not making ends meet. Sure most on this board could afford it....the minimum wage guy not so much.
Fed up with the just raise taxes people because it really isn't that possible we are already paying more in tax than anytime in the last 30 years
We are paying high taxes and getting poor services. I largely blame the party in power for the last 13 years and hope to see them voted out at the next general election.
I largely blame all parties of the last 30 years and all the middle classed sots wanting their own bunce from the system which is how we ended up with tax credits going to people with higher rate incomes and such like. The majority of the country existing on wages of mid 20k isn't that concerned about your social justice conscience for foreign aid and refugees, the arts, diversity training officers etc, they want services that work and enough left out of their paypacket to actually live.
Then along come people like most pb posters and just wave it away with "oh just raise tax" because you can afford it....maybe you will only eat out 3 nights a week instead of 4......they on the other hand will skip heating or eating because the tax is raised
As with all these things the real answer is to reduce property prices so less money is spent on a mortgage. If you are mortgage free outside London 25 grand per year is a perfectly liveable salary.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
If getting the current system to work promptly and efficiently is "less plausible", then why do you have any faith that the Rwanda option will be executed well enough? If a succession of Conservative Home Secretaries are unable to enforce the existing rules, allowing a massive backlog to develop, why do you want to give them more powers? Enforce the existing rules, save money, allow those with valid asylum claims to get out of the system and into jobs where they can contribute to the country, and deport those without valid claims.
Promptly deporting individuals who do not have a valid asylum claim will deter people without valid asylum claims.
Fair points, and the answer is that I don't. But as advice, " dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim" seems to equate to "just be better". You can't magic yourself competent. And however much we'd like to, it's hard to believe all home secretaries are genuinely idiots and everyone at the home office genuinely useless. More plausible to me is that we're asking them to do an impossible job. I have no faith in the Rwanda option. I doubt it will ever seriously happen. But at least they're not pretending the problem doesn't exist. If a future regime manages to deal with the backlog, promptly process applications and send back those who do not have a claim I will take this back.
Why can the Dutch process 95% of claims within 2 months? Are they magicians? Or do they have the political will and resources that our governments, mostly Tory, but even when new Labour still authoritarian within the Home Office, do not provide?
By all means fund it properly now specify what you are going to fund less than currently to make up the extra budget.
Well there's a billion or so already being spent every year keeping these folk in detention, and rather a lot promised to Rwanda for nothing very useful. A competently run Home Office along the lines suggested might actually cost us less.
That though is merely speculation, more efficient processing on the other hand may increase costs because more decide to come knowing they won't be waiting for years before they can work.
I am highly sceptical of "if we do this it might save us money" somehow everytime we end up spending more
And I'm highly sceptical of the utility of locking up a hundred thousand plus for years at a time for no good reason.
The current policies are both expensive and ineffective.
Where did I say currently what we have is good, just pointing out the call to properly fund comes with a cost.
Everyone on here is always demanding their pet cause be properly funded and no one ever goes and to fund it we can cut this or that
We have focussed obsessively on the short term cuts part of the equation for a long time so most of what can be cut there already has been, and beyond what is sustainable. Governments ignore the long term investements that can generate longer term and sustainable savings as they don't help their re-elections with the benefits coming 10-20 years down the line.
What you are left with is indeed few areas that are easy to cut quickly without causing damage and lots of areas where real investment will save money in the long term. People may not want to hear it but that is where we are.
Build more houses, train more doctors, fund the courts system, repair roads properly instead of covering over potholes, all these are simple examples where it should be obvious that spending more now is both the right thing to do, and cheaper over a lifetime.
You still need the money to spend it now
You cant raise taxes much further You can't borrow with no spending cuts as truss found
Its not I necessarily disagree with you but without the money to spend now its an idea going nowhere.
For now the only solution is
1) work out how much we can raise in tax as a maximum 2) work out how much it costs to fully fund everything 3) work out the priorities of what to full fund 4) cut the rest 5) as cost savings come through and not a moment before we can bring things back in dependent on priority
You can raise taxes.
You can borrow, if you do so sensibly and with a clear plan for how you will see a return on the investment, which is what Truss didn’t do.
No realistically you can't raise taxes much further, certainly not basic rate tax and there aren't enough of the rich to make more than a few billion. I am pretty sure we are getting towards the tipping point of the laffer curve that way and also damn sure even a 1% of basic rate tax is going to turn millions of JAMS into not making ends meet. Sure most on this board could afford it....the minimum wage guy not so much.
Fed up with the just raise taxes people because it really isn't that possible we are already paying more in tax than anytime in the last 30 years
We are paying high taxes and getting poor services. I largely blame the party in power for the last 13 years and hope to see them voted out at the next general election.
I largely blame all parties of the last 30 years and all the middle classed sots wanting their own bunce from the system which is how we ended up with tax credits going to people with higher rate incomes and such like. The majority of the country existing on wages of mid 20k isn't that concerned about your social justice conscience for foreign aid and refugees, the arts, diversity training officers etc, they want services that work and enough left out of their paypacket to actually live.
Then along come people like most pb posters and just wave it away with "oh just raise tax" because you can afford it....maybe you will only eat out 3 nights a week instead of 4......they on the other hand will skip heating or eating because the tax is raised
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
If getting the current system to work promptly and efficiently is "less plausible", then why do you have any faith that the Rwanda option will be executed well enough? If a succession of Conservative Home Secretaries are unable to enforce the existing rules, allowing a massive backlog to develop, why do you want to give them more powers? Enforce the existing rules, save money, allow those with valid asylum claims to get out of the system and into jobs where they can contribute to the country, and deport those without valid claims.
Promptly deporting individuals who do not have a valid asylum claim will deter people without valid asylum claims.
Fair points, and the answer is that I don't. But as advice, " dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim" seems to equate to "just be better". You can't magic yourself competent. And however much we'd like to, it's hard to believe all home secretaries are genuinely idiots and everyone at the home office genuinely useless. More plausible to me is that we're asking them to do an impossible job. I have no faith in the Rwanda option. I doubt it will ever seriously happen. But at least they're not pretending the problem doesn't exist. If a future regime manages to deal with the backlog, promptly process applications and send back those who do not have a claim I will take this back.
Why can the Dutch process 95% of claims within 2 months? Are they magicians? Or do they have the political will and resources that our governments, mostly Tory, but even when new Labour still authoritarian within the Home Office, do not provide?
By all means fund it properly now specify what you are going to fund less than currently to make up the extra budget.
Well there's a billion or so already being spent every year keeping these folk in detention, and rather a lot promised to Rwanda for nothing very useful. A competently run Home Office along the lines suggested might actually cost us less.
That though is merely speculation, more efficient processing on the other hand may increase costs because more decide to come knowing they won't be waiting for years before they can work.
I am highly sceptical of "if we do this it might save us money" somehow everytime we end up spending more
And I'm highly sceptical of the utility of locking up a hundred thousand plus for years at a time for no good reason.
The current policies are both expensive and ineffective.
Where did I say currently what we have is good, just pointing out the call to properly fund comes with a cost.
Everyone on here is always demanding their pet cause be properly funded and no one ever goes and to fund it we can cut this or that
We have focussed obsessively on the short term cuts part of the equation for a long time so most of what can be cut there already has been, and beyond what is sustainable. Governments ignore the long term investements that can generate longer term and sustainable savings as they don't help their re-elections with the benefits coming 10-20 years down the line.
What you are left with is indeed few areas that are easy to cut quickly without causing damage and lots of areas where real investment will save money in the long term. People may not want to hear it but that is where we are.
Build more houses, train more doctors, fund the courts system, repair roads properly instead of covering over potholes, all these are simple examples where it should be obvious that spending more now is both the right thing to do, and cheaper over a lifetime.
You still need the money to spend it now
You cant raise taxes much further You can't borrow with no spending cuts as truss found
Its not I necessarily disagree with you but without the money to spend now its an idea going nowhere.
For now the only solution is
1) work out how much we can raise in tax as a maximum 2) work out how much it costs to fully fund everything 3) work out the priorities of what to full fund 4) cut the rest 5) as cost savings come through and not a moment before we can bring things back in dependent on priority
You can raise taxes.
You can borrow, if you do so sensibly and with a clear plan for how you will see a return on the investment, which is what Truss didn’t do.
Besides, there are other rich countries that prosper and thrive at much higher rates of tax;
This isn't to say that taxation is an automatic good. But if it is the case that the UK is such a delicate flower that we simply can't support more government spending or taxation, that feels like a problem to investigate and (if possible) fix.
What is the average wage in those countries compared to ours
paying 60% total on a 40k salary is a lot different to paying 60% on a 25k salary
I reckon Labour lead down around 4 percentage points since the New Year. Now around 19%
19% seems high now.
Nine firms have polls with fieldwork ending since last Thursday, their Con shares are 22-35, mean 28.6, median 29; Lab shares 43-49, mean 45.5, median 45.5.
Leads vary from 10-26, mean 16.5, median 15.
The leads fall into three groups, I would say: PeoplePolling, R&W and YouGov at 20+, Deltapoll at 10 and everyone else at 14-17.
I think anecdotes are very helpful now. There is a visceral hatred for the Tories now that is only matched by the 1992 to 7 period. I would think most of the dont knows in the polls are unlikely to swing tory more that they see no other party to vote for.
That's an interesting phrase.
For god's sake man let him play himself in. Again.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
If getting the current system to work promptly and efficiently is "less plausible", then why do you have any faith that the Rwanda option will be executed well enough? If a succession of Conservative Home Secretaries are unable to enforce the existing rules, allowing a massive backlog to develop, why do you want to give them more powers? Enforce the existing rules, save money, allow those with valid asylum claims to get out of the system and into jobs where they can contribute to the country, and deport those without valid claims.
Promptly deporting individuals who do not have a valid asylum claim will deter people without valid asylum claims.
Fair points, and the answer is that I don't. But as advice, " dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim" seems to equate to "just be better". You can't magic yourself competent. And however much we'd like to, it's hard to believe all home secretaries are genuinely idiots and everyone at the home office genuinely useless. More plausible to me is that we're asking them to do an impossible job. I have no faith in the Rwanda option. I doubt it will ever seriously happen. But at least they're not pretending the problem doesn't exist. If a future regime manages to deal with the backlog, promptly process applications and send back those who do not have a claim I will take this back.
Why can the Dutch process 95% of claims within 2 months? Are they magicians? Or do they have the political will and resources that our governments, mostly Tory, but even when new Labour still authoritarian within the Home Office, do not provide?
By all means fund it properly now specify what you are going to fund less than currently to make up the extra budget.
Well there's a billion or so already being spent every year keeping these folk in detention, and rather a lot promised to Rwanda for nothing very useful. A competently run Home Office along the lines suggested might actually cost us less.
That though is merely speculation, more efficient processing on the other hand may increase costs because more decide to come knowing they won't be waiting for years before they can work.
I am highly sceptical of "if we do this it might save us money" somehow everytime we end up spending more
And I'm highly sceptical of the utility of locking up a hundred thousand plus for years at a time for no good reason.
The current policies are both expensive and ineffective.
Where did I say currently what we have is good, just pointing out the call to properly fund comes with a cost.
Everyone on here is always demanding their pet cause be properly funded and no one ever goes and to fund it we can cut this or that
We have focussed obsessively on the short term cuts part of the equation for a long time so most of what can be cut there already has been, and beyond what is sustainable. Governments ignore the long term investements that can generate longer term and sustainable savings as they don't help their re-elections with the benefits coming 10-20 years down the line.
What you are left with is indeed few areas that are easy to cut quickly without causing damage and lots of areas where real investment will save money in the long term. People may not want to hear it but that is where we are.
Build more houses, train more doctors, fund the courts system, repair roads properly instead of covering over potholes, all these are simple examples where it should be obvious that spending more now is both the right thing to do, and cheaper over a lifetime.
You still need the money to spend it now
You cant raise taxes much further You can't borrow with no spending cuts as truss found
Its not I necessarily disagree with you but without the money to spend now its an idea going nowhere.
For now the only solution is
1) work out how much we can raise in tax as a maximum 2) work out how much it costs to fully fund everything 3) work out the priorities of what to full fund 4) cut the rest 5) as cost savings come through and not a moment before we can bring things back in dependent on priority
You can raise taxes.
You can borrow, if you do so sensibly and with a clear plan for how you will see a return on the investment, which is what Truss didn’t do.
No realistically you can't raise taxes much further, certainly not basic rate tax and there aren't enough of the rich to make more than a few billion. I am pretty sure we are getting towards the tipping point of the laffer curve that way and also damn sure even a 1% of basic rate tax is going to turn millions of JAMS into not making ends meet. Sure most on this board could afford it....the minimum wage guy not so much.
Fed up with the just raise taxes people because it really isn't that possible we are already paying more in tax than anytime in the last 30 years
And I'm fed up with your ignoring every argument which doesn't involve raising taxes - for example: You can borrow, if you do so sensibly and with a clear plan for how you will see a return on the investment, which is what Truss didn’t do.
To return to the original point, current immigration policy is both expensive and ineffective. And you're defending it.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
If getting the current system to work promptly and efficiently is "less plausible", then why do you have any faith that the Rwanda option will be executed well enough? If a succession of Conservative Home Secretaries are unable to enforce the existing rules, allowing a massive backlog to develop, why do you want to give them more powers? Enforce the existing rules, save money, allow those with valid asylum claims to get out of the system and into jobs where they can contribute to the country, and deport those without valid claims.
Promptly deporting individuals who do not have a valid asylum claim will deter people without valid asylum claims.
Fair points, and the answer is that I don't. But as advice, " dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim" seems to equate to "just be better". You can't magic yourself competent. And however much we'd like to, it's hard to believe all home secretaries are genuinely idiots and everyone at the home office genuinely useless. More plausible to me is that we're asking them to do an impossible job. I have no faith in the Rwanda option. I doubt it will ever seriously happen. But at least they're not pretending the problem doesn't exist. If a future regime manages to deal with the backlog, promptly process applications and send back those who do not have a claim I will take this back.
Why can the Dutch process 95% of claims within 2 months? Are they magicians? Or do they have the political will and resources that our governments, mostly Tory, but even when new Labour still authoritarian within the Home Office, do not provide?
By all means fund it properly now specify what you are going to fund less than currently to make up the extra budget.
Well there's a billion or so already being spent every year keeping these folk in detention, and rather a lot promised to Rwanda for nothing very useful. A competently run Home Office along the lines suggested might actually cost us less.
That though is merely speculation, more efficient processing on the other hand may increase costs because more decide to come knowing they won't be waiting for years before they can work.
I am highly sceptical of "if we do this it might save us money" somehow everytime we end up spending more
And I'm highly sceptical of the utility of locking up a hundred thousand plus for years at a time for no good reason.
The current policies are both expensive and ineffective.
Where did I say currently what we have is good, just pointing out the call to properly fund comes with a cost.
Everyone on here is always demanding their pet cause be properly funded and no one ever goes and to fund it we can cut this or that
We have focussed obsessively on the short term cuts part of the equation for a long time so most of what can be cut there already has been, and beyond what is sustainable. Governments ignore the long term investements that can generate longer term and sustainable savings as they don't help their re-elections with the benefits coming 10-20 years down the line.
What you are left with is indeed few areas that are easy to cut quickly without causing damage and lots of areas where real investment will save money in the long term. People may not want to hear it but that is where we are.
Build more houses, train more doctors, fund the courts system, repair roads properly instead of covering over potholes, all these are simple examples where it should be obvious that spending more now is both the right thing to do, and cheaper over a lifetime.
You still need the money to spend it now
You cant raise taxes much further You can't borrow with no spending cuts as truss found
Its not I necessarily disagree with you but without the money to spend now its an idea going nowhere.
For now the only solution is
1) work out how much we can raise in tax as a maximum 2) work out how much it costs to fully fund everything 3) work out the priorities of what to full fund 4) cut the rest 5) as cost savings come through and not a moment before we can bring things back in dependent on priority
You can raise taxes.
You can borrow, if you do so sensibly and with a clear plan for how you will see a return on the investment, which is what Truss didn’t do.
No realistically you can't raise taxes much further, certainly not basic rate tax and there aren't enough of the rich to make more than a few billion. I am pretty sure we are getting towards the tipping point of the laffer curve that way and also damn sure even a 1% of basic rate tax is going to turn millions of JAMS into not making ends meet. Sure most on this board could afford it....the minimum wage guy not so much.
Fed up with the just raise taxes people because it really isn't that possible we are already paying more in tax than anytime in the last 30 years
We are paying high taxes and getting poor services. I largely blame the party in power for the last 13 years and hope to see them voted out at the next general election.
I largely blame all parties of the last 30 years and all the middle classed sots wanting their own bunce from the system which is how we ended up with tax credits going to people with higher rate incomes and such like. The majority of the country existing on wages of mid 20k isn't that concerned about your social justice conscience for foreign aid and refugees, the arts, diversity training officers etc, they want services that work and enough left out of their paypacket to actually live.
Then along come people like most pb posters and just wave it away with "oh just raise tax" because you can afford it....maybe you will only eat out 3 nights a week instead of 4......they on the other hand will skip heating or eating because the tax is raised
Most tax is contributed by middle-class people.
Thats as maybe but the country would collapse without the contribution of the working class. Its also based on a flimsy argument. Many of those in financial services arguably skim money from the rest of the economy even as they pay large amounts of tax.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
If getting the current system to work promptly and efficiently is "less plausible", then why do you have any faith that the Rwanda option will be executed well enough? If a succession of Conservative Home Secretaries are unable to enforce the existing rules, allowing a massive backlog to develop, why do you want to give them more powers? Enforce the existing rules, save money, allow those with valid asylum claims to get out of the system and into jobs where they can contribute to the country, and deport those without valid claims.
Promptly deporting individuals who do not have a valid asylum claim will deter people without valid asylum claims.
Fair points, and the answer is that I don't. But as advice, " dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim" seems to equate to "just be better". You can't magic yourself competent. And however much we'd like to, it's hard to believe all home secretaries are genuinely idiots and everyone at the home office genuinely useless. More plausible to me is that we're asking them to do an impossible job. I have no faith in the Rwanda option. I doubt it will ever seriously happen. But at least they're not pretending the problem doesn't exist. If a future regime manages to deal with the backlog, promptly process applications and send back those who do not have a claim I will take this back.
Why can the Dutch process 95% of claims within 2 months? Are they magicians? Or do they have the political will and resources that our governments, mostly Tory, but even when new Labour still authoritarian within the Home Office, do not provide?
By all means fund it properly now specify what you are going to fund less than currently to make up the extra budget.
Well there's a billion or so already being spent every year keeping these folk in detention, and rather a lot promised to Rwanda for nothing very useful. A competently run Home Office along the lines suggested might actually cost us less.
That though is merely speculation, more efficient processing on the other hand may increase costs because more decide to come knowing they won't be waiting for years before they can work.
I am highly sceptical of "if we do this it might save us money" somehow everytime we end up spending more
And I'm highly sceptical of the utility of locking up a hundred thousand plus for years at a time for no good reason.
The current policies are both expensive and ineffective.
Where did I say currently what we have is good, just pointing out the call to properly fund comes with a cost.
Everyone on here is always demanding their pet cause be properly funded and no one ever goes and to fund it we can cut this or that
We have focussed obsessively on the short term cuts part of the equation for a long time so most of what can be cut there already has been, and beyond what is sustainable. Governments ignore the long term investements that can generate longer term and sustainable savings as they don't help their re-elections with the benefits coming 10-20 years down the line.
What you are left with is indeed few areas that are easy to cut quickly without causing damage and lots of areas where real investment will save money in the long term. People may not want to hear it but that is where we are.
Build more houses, train more doctors, fund the courts system, repair roads properly instead of covering over potholes, all these are simple examples where it should be obvious that spending more now is both the right thing to do, and cheaper over a lifetime.
You still need the money to spend it now
You cant raise taxes much further You can't borrow with no spending cuts as truss found
Its not I necessarily disagree with you but without the money to spend now its an idea going nowhere.
For now the only solution is
1) work out how much we can raise in tax as a maximum 2) work out how much it costs to fully fund everything 3) work out the priorities of what to full fund 4) cut the rest 5) as cost savings come through and not a moment before we can bring things back in dependent on priority
You can raise taxes.
You can borrow, if you do so sensibly and with a clear plan for how you will see a return on the investment, which is what Truss didn’t do.
Besides, there are other rich countries that prosper and thrive at much higher rates of tax;
This isn't to say that taxation is an automatic good. But if it is the case that the UK is such a delicate flower that we simply can't support more government spending or taxation, that feels like a problem to investigate and (if possible) fix.
What is the average wage in those countries compared to ours
paying 60% total on a 40k salary is a lot different to paying 60% on a 25k salary
Norway for example reknowned for high tax 42.2% of gdp
UK 33.5% of gdp
however norway average wage in us$ 4478 uk average wage = 3300 us$
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Good to see that the C of E tradition for housing otherworldly eccentrics still flourishes.
I’m interested (as an atheist) as to how the Head Shed of a religion using a religious ceremony, in his number one venue, for recruitment is “hijacking”.
Isn’t that his job?
I'm more interested in how he thinks the coronation might convert anyone at all.
It really is a very odd idea.
Yes - "I was against the concept of thr monarchy, but the sheer magnificence of the ceremony won me over" - hard to imagine that's going to be a massive group.
It isn't trying to convert republicans to monarchists, the focus is more on converting agnostic monarchists to Christian monarchists from the Church of England's point of view (and Welby is on the evangelical wing of the Church of England after all).
Given about 2/3 of the UK population are monarchists still but only 47% of the UK population are now Christians that is nearly 20% of the UK population for the Church of England to target and only a minority of them will be from other faiths or confirmed atheists
6% say they are actually practising.
Less than 1% attend Church on a typical week.
47% ticked a box.
5% attend a Christian church every week, whether Anglican, Roman Catholic or non Anglican evangelical. Roman Catholics have the highest attendance rate and Pentecostals the highest attendance growth.
Though more go once you include those who go only for Christmas, Easter or Mothering Sunday, weddings, baptisms and funerals
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Good to see that the C of E tradition for housing otherworldly eccentrics still flourishes.
I’m interested (as an atheist) as to how the Head Shed of a religion using a religious ceremony, in his number one venue, for recruitment is “hijacking”.
Isn’t that his job?
I'm more interested in how he thinks the coronation might convert anyone at all.
It really is a very odd idea.
Yes - "I was against the concept of thr monarchy, but the sheer magnificence of the ceremony won me over" - hard to imagine that's going to be a massive group.
It isn't trying to convert republicans to monarchists, the focus is more on converting agnostic monarchists to Christian monarchists from the Church of England's point of view (and Welby is on the evangelical wing of the Church of England after all).
Given about 2/3 of the UK population are monarchists still but only 47% of the UK population are now Christians that is nearly 20% of the UK population for the Church of England to target and only a minority of them will be from other faiths or confirmed atheists
6% say they are actually practising.
Less than 1% attend Church on a typical week.
47% ticked a box.
5% attend a Christian church every week, whether Anglican, Roman Catholic or non Anglican evangelical. Roman Catholics have the highest attendance rate and Pentecostals the highest attendance growth.
Though more go once you include those who go only for Christmas, Easter or Mothering Sunday, weddings, baptisms and funerals
In any case it won't just be a Church of England event, the King will still be it's Supreme Governor but there will be priests from the Roman Catholic Church, ministers from the Church of Scotland and Pentecostal churches at the coronation too as there were at the Queen's funeral. Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and Sikh religious leaders will also be present in the congregation at the coronation and the King will promise to defend all those with faith rather than just the faith as his mother did at her coronation
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Good to see that the C of E tradition for housing otherworldly eccentrics still flourishes.
I’m interested (as an atheist) as to how the Head Shed of a religion using a religious ceremony, in his number one venue, for recruitment is “hijacking”.
Isn’t that his job?
I'm more interested in how he thinks the coronation might convert anyone at all.
It really is a very odd idea.
Yes - "I was against the concept of thr monarchy, but the sheer magnificence of the ceremony won me over" - hard to imagine that's going to be a massive group.
It isn't trying to convert republicans to monarchists, the focus is more on converting agnostic monarchists to Christian monarchists from the Church of England's point of view (and Welby is on the evangelical wing of the Church of England after all).
Given about 2/3 of the UK population are monarchists still but only 47% of the UK population are now Christians that is nearly 20% of the UK population for the Church of England to target and only a minority of them will be from other faiths or confirmed atheists
6% say they are actually practising.
Less than 1% attend Church on a typical week.
47% ticked a box.
5% attend a Christian church every week, whether Anglican, Roman Catholic or non Anglican evangelical. Roman Catholics have the highest attendance rate and Pentecostals the highest attendance growth.
Though more go once you include those who go only for Christmas, Easter or Mothering Sunday, weddings, baptisms and funerals
II Oath hereafter mentioned to be adminstered, by the Archbishop of Canterbury, &c.
May it please Your Majesties That the Oath herein Mentioned and hereafter Expressed shall and may be Adminstred to their most Excellent Majestyes King William and Queene Mary (whome God long preserve) at the time of Their Coronation in the presence of all Persons that shall be then and there present at the Solemnizeing thereof by the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Archbishop of Yorke or either of them or any other Bishop of this Realme whome the King’s Majesty shall thereunto appoint and who shall be hereby thereunto respectively Authorized which Oath followeth and shall be Administred in this Manner That is to say, III Form of Oath and Administration thereof.
The Arch-Bishop or Bishop shall say,
Will You solemnely Promise and Sweare to Governe the People of this Kingdome of England and the Dominions thereto belonging according to the Statutes in Parlyament Agreed on and the Laws and Customs of the same?
The King and Queene shall say,
I solemnly Promise soe to doe.
Arch Bishop or Bishop,
Will You to Your power cause Law and Justice in Mercy to be Executed in all Your Judgements.
King and Queene,
I will.
Arch Bishop or Bishop.
Will You to the utmost of Your power Maintaine the Laws of God the true Profession of the Gospell and the Protestant Reformed Religion Established by Law? And will You Preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of this Realme and to the Churches committed to their Charge all such Rights and Priviledges as by Law doe or shall appertaine unto them or any of them.
King and Queene.
All this I Promise to doe.
After this the King and Queene laying His and Her Hand upon the Holy Gospells, shall say,
King and Queene
The things which I have here before promised I will performe and Keepe Soe help me God.
Then the King and Queene shall kisse the Booke.
IV Oath to be adminstered to all future Kings and Queens.
And the said Oath shall be in like manner Adminstred to every King or Queene who shall Succeede to the Imperiall Crowne of this Realme at their respective Coronations by one of the Archbishops or Bishops of this Realme of England for the time being to be thereunto appointed by such King or Queene respectively and in the Presence of all Persons that shall be Attending Assisting or otherwise present at such their respective Coronations Any Law Statute or Usage to the contrary notwithstanding.
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Good to see that the C of E tradition for housing otherworldly eccentrics still flourishes.
I’m interested (as an atheist) as to how the Head Shed of a religion using a religious ceremony, in his number one venue, for recruitment is “hijacking”.
Isn’t that his job?
I'm more interested in how he thinks the coronation might convert anyone at all.
It really is a very odd idea.
Yes - "I was against the concept of thr monarchy, but the sheer magnificence of the ceremony won me over" - hard to imagine that's going to be a massive group.
It isn't trying to convert republicans to monarchists, the focus is more on converting agnostic monarchists to Christian monarchists from the Church of England's point of view (and Welby is on the evangelical wing of the Church of England after all).
Given about 2/3 of the UK population are monarchists still but only 47% of the UK population are now Christians that is nearly 20% of the UK population for the Church of England to target and only a minority of them will be from other faiths or confirmed atheists
6% say they are actually practising.
Less than 1% attend Church on a typical week.
47% ticked a box.
5% attend a Christian church every week, whether Anglican, Roman Catholic or non Anglican evangelical. Roman Catholics have the highest attendance rate and Pentecostals the highest attendance growth.
Though more go once you include those who go only for Christmas, Easter or Mothering Sunday, weddings, baptisms and funerals
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Good to see that the C of E tradition for housing otherworldly eccentrics still flourishes.
I’m interested (as an atheist) as to how the Head Shed of a religion using a religious ceremony, in his number one venue, for recruitment is “hijacking”.
Isn’t that his job?
I'm more interested in how he thinks the coronation might convert anyone at all.
It really is a very odd idea.
Yes - "I was against the concept of thr monarchy, but the sheer magnificence of the ceremony won me over" - hard to imagine that's going to be a massive group.
It isn't trying to convert republicans to monarchists, the focus is more on converting agnostic monarchists to Christian monarchists from the Church of England's point of view (and Welby is on the evangelical wing of the Church of England after all).
Given about 2/3 of the UK population are monarchists still but only 47% of the UK population are now Christians that is nearly 20% of the UK population for the Church of England to target and only a minority of them will be from other faiths or confirmed atheists
6% say they are actually practising.
Less than 1% attend Church on a typical week.
47% ticked a box.
5% attend a Christian church every week, whether Anglican, Roman Catholic or non Anglican evangelical. Roman Catholics have the highest attendance rate and Pentecostals the highest attendance growth.
Though more go once you include those who go only for Christmas, Easter or Mothering Sunday, weddings, baptisms and funerals
Deliberately walking closely behind someone as they walk home at night Making obscene or aggressive comments towards a person in the street Making obscene or offensive gestures towards a person in the street Obstructing someone's path Driving or riding a vehicle slowly near someone making a journey
Some of those seem very difficult to very difficult to pin down very definite definitions for. What is an offensive gesture? Is it, what the person on the receiving end deems it to be?
So I’m driving along slowly looking for house numbers?
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
If getting the current system to work promptly and efficiently is "less plausible", then why do you have any faith that the Rwanda option will be executed well enough? If a succession of Conservative Home Secretaries are unable to enforce the existing rules, allowing a massive backlog to develop, why do you want to give them more powers? Enforce the existing rules, save money, allow those with valid asylum claims to get out of the system and into jobs where they can contribute to the country, and deport those without valid claims.
Promptly deporting individuals who do not have a valid asylum claim will deter people without valid asylum claims.
Fair points, and the answer is that I don't. But as advice, " dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim" seems to equate to "just be better". You can't magic yourself competent. And however much we'd like to, it's hard to believe all home secretaries are genuinely idiots and everyone at the home office genuinely useless. More plausible to me is that we're asking them to do an impossible job. I have no faith in the Rwanda option. I doubt it will ever seriously happen. But at least they're not pretending the problem doesn't exist. If a future regime manages to deal with the backlog, promptly process applications and send back those who do not have a claim I will take this back.
Why can the Dutch process 95% of claims within 2 months? Are they magicians? Or do they have the political will and resources that our governments, mostly Tory, but even when new Labour still authoritarian within the Home Office, do not provide?
By all means fund it properly now specify what you are going to fund less than currently to make up the extra budget.
Well there's a billion or so already being spent every year keeping these folk in detention, and rather a lot promised to Rwanda for nothing very useful. A competently run Home Office along the lines suggested might actually cost us less.
That though is merely speculation, more efficient processing on the other hand may increase costs because more decide to come knowing they won't be waiting for years before they can work.
I am highly sceptical of "if we do this it might save us money" somehow everytime we end up spending more
And I'm highly sceptical of the utility of locking up a hundred thousand plus for years at a time for no good reason.
The current policies are both expensive and ineffective.
Where did I say currently what we have is good, just pointing out the call to properly fund comes with a cost.
Everyone on here is always demanding their pet cause be properly funded and no one ever goes and to fund it we can cut this or that
We have focussed obsessively on the short term cuts part of the equation for a long time so most of what can be cut there already has been, and beyond what is sustainable. Governments ignore the long term investements that can generate longer term and sustainable savings as they don't help their re-elections with the benefits coming 10-20 years down the line.
What you are left with is indeed few areas that are easy to cut quickly without causing damage and lots of areas where real investment will save money in the long term. People may not want to hear it but that is where we are.
Build more houses, train more doctors, fund the courts system, repair roads properly instead of covering over potholes, all these are simple examples where it should be obvious that spending more now is both the right thing to do, and cheaper over a lifetime.
You still need the money to spend it now
You cant raise taxes much further You can't borrow with no spending cuts as truss found
Its not I necessarily disagree with you but without the money to spend now its an idea going nowhere.
For now the only solution is
1) work out how much we can raise in tax as a maximum 2) work out how much it costs to fully fund everything 3) work out the priorities of what to full fund 4) cut the rest 5) as cost savings come through and not a moment before we can bring things back in dependent on priority
You can raise taxes.
You can borrow, if you do so sensibly and with a clear plan for how you will see a return on the investment, which is what Truss didn’t do.
Besides, there are other rich countries that prosper and thrive at much higher rates of tax;
This isn't to say that taxation is an automatic good. But if it is the case that the UK is such a delicate flower that we simply can't support more government spending or taxation, that feels like a problem to investigate and (if possible) fix.
What is the average wage in those countries compared to ours
paying 60% total on a 40k salary is a lot different to paying 60% on a 25k salary
It's not the case that pay in the UK is particularly bad (though there is the whole London vs the rest issue). So it must be something else; and the standout obvious first thing to check is the price of renting or buying somewhere to live.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
If getting the current system to work promptly and efficiently is "less plausible", then why do you have any faith that the Rwanda option will be executed well enough? If a succession of Conservative Home Secretaries are unable to enforce the existing rules, allowing a massive backlog to develop, why do you want to give them more powers? Enforce the existing rules, save money, allow those with valid asylum claims to get out of the system and into jobs where they can contribute to the country, and deport those without valid claims.
Promptly deporting individuals who do not have a valid asylum claim will deter people without valid asylum claims.
Fair points, and the answer is that I don't. But as advice, " dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim" seems to equate to "just be better". You can't magic yourself competent. And however much we'd like to, it's hard to believe all home secretaries are genuinely idiots and everyone at the home office genuinely useless. More plausible to me is that we're asking them to do an impossible job. I have no faith in the Rwanda option. I doubt it will ever seriously happen. But at least they're not pretending the problem doesn't exist. If a future regime manages to deal with the backlog, promptly process applications and send back those who do not have a claim I will take this back.
Why can the Dutch process 95% of claims within 2 months? Are they magicians? Or do they have the political will and resources that our governments, mostly Tory, but even when new Labour still authoritarian within the Home Office, do not provide?
By all means fund it properly now specify what you are going to fund less than currently to make up the extra budget.
Well there's a billion or so already being spent every year keeping these folk in detention, and rather a lot promised to Rwanda for nothing very useful. A competently run Home Office along the lines suggested might actually cost us less.
That though is merely speculation, more efficient processing on the other hand may increase costs because more decide to come knowing they won't be waiting for years before they can work.
I am highly sceptical of "if we do this it might save us money" somehow everytime we end up spending more
And I'm highly sceptical of the utility of locking up a hundred thousand plus for years at a time for no good reason.
The current policies are both expensive and ineffective.
Where did I say currently what we have is good, just pointing out the call to properly fund comes with a cost.
Everyone on here is always demanding their pet cause be properly funded and no one ever goes and to fund it we can cut this or that
We have focussed obsessively on the short term cuts part of the equation for a long time so most of what can be cut there already has been, and beyond what is sustainable. Governments ignore the long term investements that can generate longer term and sustainable savings as they don't help their re-elections with the benefits coming 10-20 years down the line.
What you are left with is indeed few areas that are easy to cut quickly without causing damage and lots of areas where real investment will save money in the long term. People may not want to hear it but that is where we are.
Build more houses, train more doctors, fund the courts system, repair roads properly instead of covering over potholes, all these are simple examples where it should be obvious that spending more now is both the right thing to do, and cheaper over a lifetime.
You still need the money to spend it now
You cant raise taxes much further You can't borrow with no spending cuts as truss found
Its not I necessarily disagree with you but without the money to spend now its an idea going nowhere.
For now the only solution is
1) work out how much we can raise in tax as a maximum 2) work out how much it costs to fully fund everything 3) work out the priorities of what to full fund 4) cut the rest 5) as cost savings come through and not a moment before we can bring things back in dependent on priority
You can raise taxes.
You can borrow, if you do so sensibly and with a clear plan for how you will see a return on the investment, which is what Truss didn’t do.
No realistically you can't raise taxes much further, certainly not basic rate tax and there aren't enough of the rich to make more than a few billion. I am pretty sure we are getting towards the tipping point of the laffer curve that way and also damn sure even a 1% of basic rate tax is going to turn millions of JAMS into not making ends meet. Sure most on this board could afford it....the minimum wage guy not so much.
Fed up with the just raise taxes people because it really isn't that possible we are already paying more in tax than anytime in the last 30 years
We are paying high taxes and getting poor services. I largely blame the party in power for the last 13 years and hope to see them voted out at the next general election.
I largely blame all parties of the last 30 years and all the middle classed sots wanting their own bunce from the system which is how we ended up with tax credits going to people with higher rate incomes and such like. The majority of the country existing on wages of mid 20k isn't that concerned about your social justice conscience for foreign aid and refugees, the arts, diversity training officers etc, they want services that work and enough left out of their paypacket to actually live.
Then along come people like most pb posters and just wave it away with "oh just raise tax" because you can afford it....maybe you will only eat out 3 nights a week instead of 4......they on the other hand will skip heating or eating because the tax is raised
As with all these things the real answer is to reduce property prices so less money is spent on a mortgage. If you are mortgage free outside London 25 grand per year is a perfectly liveable salary.
Main problem is that the British economy, and a very large percentage of the electorate, is addicted to the crack cocaine of ever rising house prices, sustained by a chronic lack of supply. And the politicians are too terrified of the massed hordes of nimbies to fix the problem, so we're stuck.
Of course, ludicrously overpriced properties do at least offer a theoretical alternative to the problem of the endless ramping of income tax, and other levies on earned incomes, to fund the astronomical cost of state pensions and caring for the demented: tax the crap out of assets instead. But that would result in enraged screaming from the majority of the grey vote who are owner occupiers - a large group, and one closely overlapping with the dreaded nimbies, of whom the politicians are also terrified.
And so we continue, as a nation, to circle the plughole.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
If getting the current system to work promptly and efficiently is "less plausible", then why do you have any faith that the Rwanda option will be executed well enough? If a succession of Conservative Home Secretaries are unable to enforce the existing rules, allowing a massive backlog to develop, why do you want to give them more powers? Enforce the existing rules, save money, allow those with valid asylum claims to get out of the system and into jobs where they can contribute to the country, and deport those without valid claims.
Promptly deporting individuals who do not have a valid asylum claim will deter people without valid asylum claims.
Fair points, and the answer is that I don't. But as advice, " dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim" seems to equate to "just be better". You can't magic yourself competent. And however much we'd like to, it's hard to believe all home secretaries are genuinely idiots and everyone at the home office genuinely useless. More plausible to me is that we're asking them to do an impossible job. I have no faith in the Rwanda option. I doubt it will ever seriously happen. But at least they're not pretending the problem doesn't exist. If a future regime manages to deal with the backlog, promptly process applications and send back those who do not have a claim I will take this back.
Why can the Dutch process 95% of claims within 2 months? Are they magicians? Or do they have the political will and resources that our governments, mostly Tory, but even when new Labour still authoritarian within the Home Office, do not provide?
By all means fund it properly now specify what you are going to fund less than currently to make up the extra budget.
Well there's a billion or so already being spent every year keeping these folk in detention, and rather a lot promised to Rwanda for nothing very useful. A competently run Home Office along the lines suggested might actually cost us less.
That though is merely speculation, more efficient processing on the other hand may increase costs because more decide to come knowing they won't be waiting for years before they can work.
I am highly sceptical of "if we do this it might save us money" somehow everytime we end up spending more
And I'm highly sceptical of the utility of locking up a hundred thousand plus for years at a time for no good reason.
The current policies are both expensive and ineffective.
Where did I say currently what we have is good, just pointing out the call to properly fund comes with a cost.
Everyone on here is always demanding their pet cause be properly funded and no one ever goes and to fund it we can cut this or that
We have focussed obsessively on the short term cuts part of the equation for a long time so most of what can be cut there already has been, and beyond what is sustainable. Governments ignore the long term investements that can generate longer term and sustainable savings as they don't help their re-elections with the benefits coming 10-20 years down the line.
What you are left with is indeed few areas that are easy to cut quickly without causing damage and lots of areas where real investment will save money in the long term. People may not want to hear it but that is where we are.
Build more houses, train more doctors, fund the courts system, repair roads properly instead of covering over potholes, all these are simple examples where it should be obvious that spending more now is both the right thing to do, and cheaper over a lifetime.
You still need the money to spend it now
You cant raise taxes much further You can't borrow with no spending cuts as truss found
Its not I necessarily disagree with you but without the money to spend now its an idea going nowhere.
For now the only solution is
1) work out how much we can raise in tax as a maximum 2) work out how much it costs to fully fund everything 3) work out the priorities of what to full fund 4) cut the rest 5) as cost savings come through and not a moment before we can bring things back in dependent on priority
You can raise taxes.
You can borrow, if you do so sensibly and with a clear plan for how you will see a return on the investment, which is what Truss didn’t do.
Besides, there are other rich countries that prosper and thrive at much higher rates of tax;
This isn't to say that taxation is an automatic good. But if it is the case that the UK is such a delicate flower that we simply can't support more government spending or taxation, that feels like a problem to investigate and (if possible) fix.
What is the average wage in those countries compared to ours
paying 60% total on a 40k salary is a lot different to paying 60% on a 25k salary
Norway for example reknowned for high tax 42.2% of gdp
UK 33.5% of gdp
however norway average wage in us$ 4478 uk average wage = 3300 us$
42.2% of 4478 = 2588 us$ 33.5% of 3300 = 2194 us$
So yes taxed higher but still have more left
Last time I was in Norway everything was phenomenally expensive. I am not sure using the NOK exchange rate as a basis for the comparison of wages is valid.
Cost of living in Norway is, on average, 33.6% higher than in United Kingdom. according to this site:
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
This sounds like you're cagily viewing the billions of people in less developed countries as some gigantic mono-mass of humanity so purely driven by monetary concerns that they'd all migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. I doubt this is the case myself. I think most people prefer to make a life in their own country.
To be clear, I do, a bit, and I don't mean to do so pejoratively. If I lived in Chad or Eritrea or Somalia I'd migrate thousands of miles to Manchester given half the chance. Mind you, if I lived in Coventry or Tunbridge Wells or Stoke I'd migrate the dozens of miles to Manchester given half the chance. 'Cos Manchester's boss. Nice one, our kid.
Top place obviously. About time I visited it again. It's been too long. But I do think you're underestimating how similar people all over the world are. Just as we are attached to our patch so are they. I don't buy this "4 billion are chomping at the bit to come here and they will if we let our guard down" type rhetoric. I think it's mainly a strawman debating technique of anti-immigrationers.
From being in Peru, having Peruvian relatives etc. you’d get 20%+ who would board a plane tomorrow, if they thought they could stay and get a job.
I’m talking “run for the plane without a second thought”.
I volunteer Canada as the country to try it out, say for 12 months. Then we will know. Massively underpopulated, liberal, democratic, space in mind blowing abundance, long tradition of humanitarian refuge.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
If getting the current system to work promptly and efficiently is "less plausible", then why do you have any faith that the Rwanda option will be executed well enough? If a succession of Conservative Home Secretaries are unable to enforce the existing rules, allowing a massive backlog to develop, why do you want to give them more powers? Enforce the existing rules, save money, allow those with valid asylum claims to get out of the system and into jobs where they can contribute to the country, and deport those without valid claims.
Promptly deporting individuals who do not have a valid asylum claim will deter people without valid asylum claims.
Fair points, and the answer is that I don't. But as advice, " dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim" seems to equate to "just be better". You can't magic yourself competent. And however much we'd like to, it's hard to believe all home secretaries are genuinely idiots and everyone at the home office genuinely useless. More plausible to me is that we're asking them to do an impossible job. I have no faith in the Rwanda option. I doubt it will ever seriously happen. But at least they're not pretending the problem doesn't exist. If a future regime manages to deal with the backlog, promptly process applications and send back those who do not have a claim I will take this back.
Why can the Dutch process 95% of claims within 2 months? Are they magicians? Or do they have the political will and resources that our governments, mostly Tory, but even when new Labour still authoritarian within the Home Office, do not provide?
By all means fund it properly now specify what you are going to fund less than currently to make up the extra budget.
Well there's a billion or so already being spent every year keeping these folk in detention, and rather a lot promised to Rwanda for nothing very useful. A competently run Home Office along the lines suggested might actually cost us less.
That though is merely speculation, more efficient processing on the other hand may increase costs because more decide to come knowing they won't be waiting for years before they can work.
I am highly sceptical of "if we do this it might save us money" somehow everytime we end up spending more
And I'm highly sceptical of the utility of locking up a hundred thousand plus for years at a time for no good reason.
The current policies are both expensive and ineffective.
Where did I say currently what we have is good, just pointing out the call to properly fund comes with a cost.
Everyone on here is always demanding their pet cause be properly funded and no one ever goes and to fund it we can cut this or that
We have focussed obsessively on the short term cuts part of the equation for a long time so most of what can be cut there already has been, and beyond what is sustainable. Governments ignore the long term investements that can generate longer term and sustainable savings as they don't help their re-elections with the benefits coming 10-20 years down the line.
What you are left with is indeed few areas that are easy to cut quickly without causing damage and lots of areas where real investment will save money in the long term. People may not want to hear it but that is where we are.
Build more houses, train more doctors, fund the courts system, repair roads properly instead of covering over potholes, all these are simple examples where it should be obvious that spending more now is both the right thing to do, and cheaper over a lifetime.
You still need the money to spend it now
You cant raise taxes much further You can't borrow with no spending cuts as truss found
Its not I necessarily disagree with you but without the money to spend now its an idea going nowhere.
For now the only solution is
1) work out how much we can raise in tax as a maximum 2) work out how much it costs to fully fund everything 3) work out the priorities of what to full fund 4) cut the rest 5) as cost savings come through and not a moment before we can bring things back in dependent on priority
You can raise taxes.
You can borrow, if you do so sensibly and with a clear plan for how you will see a return on the investment, which is what Truss didn’t do.
Besides, there are other rich countries that prosper and thrive at much higher rates of tax;
This isn't to say that taxation is an automatic good. But if it is the case that the UK is such a delicate flower that we simply can't support more government spending or taxation, that feels like a problem to investigate and (if possible) fix.
What is the average wage in those countries compared to ours
paying 60% total on a 40k salary is a lot different to paying 60% on a 25k salary
It's not the case that pay in the UK is particularly bad (though there is the whole London vs the rest issue). So it must be something else; and the standout obvious first thing to check is the price of renting or buying somewhere to live.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.
The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.
I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.
Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
Hear hear, as someone who lives in a red wall seat I can only echo this. I would also go as far to say I have never heard anyone express a view on it. Issues like pay, fuel bills, availability of groceries for sure but not boat people.
People like Rogerdamus just have a passionate dislike for anything red wall blaming the red wall for Brexit. But your debating what people in the Red Wall think with a guy who spends half his life in France. He won't know, as you say it is people projecting.
The Red Wall is not a place, it's a type of voter. Specifically those who voted Tory for the 1st time in 2019 through genuine enthusiasm for Boris and his Brexit. These people delivered the big Con win and have been identified by both parties as key to the next election too. They will typically be Hard Leavers, quite nationalistic, anti-empathetic to migrants and refugees. The rhetoric designed to appeal to them can therefore cause the nose to wrinkle but we may as well get used to it, at least for the next 18 months.
Is it possible for politicians to do anything to stop the boats without causing the nose to wrinkle?
My understanding is that the vast majority of those crossing the channel illegally are not - in any sense of the word we would understand - refugees. And my view is that their arrival is not really a positive for the country - nor indeed (though this is less of my business) for their country of origin (i.e. Albania etc.). So I'd quite like something done which prevents their arrival. The Rwanda policy might disappoint many, but it does at least have the merit of being any policy at all, which is a welcome contrast to the last 30 years of immigration policy. For the record, I'm happy to welcome the likes of the Ukrainians, who are clearly genuine refugees.
You might take a different view on the desirability of the arrival of illegal immigrants, but I don't think my view is extreme or in any way 'wrong' to hold. Wrinkling your nose in distaste at the view that the crossings ought to be prevented is not particularly helpful.
A policy of dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim, seems acceptable to everyone… except theConservative Party.
Except - practical experience has shown us that that's even less plausible than the Rwanda option. There needs to be something to deter people coming in the first place. Without that, the whole 3rd world beats a path to our door.
If getting the current system to work promptly and efficiently is "less plausible", then why do you have any faith that the Rwanda option will be executed well enough? If a succession of Conservative Home Secretaries are unable to enforce the existing rules, allowing a massive backlog to develop, why do you want to give them more powers? Enforce the existing rules, save money, allow those with valid asylum claims to get out of the system and into jobs where they can contribute to the country, and deport those without valid claims.
Promptly deporting individuals who do not have a valid asylum claim will deter people without valid asylum claims.
Fair points, and the answer is that I don't. But as advice, " dealing with the current backlog and promptly processing applications, and sending back those who do not have a valid claim" seems to equate to "just be better". You can't magic yourself competent. And however much we'd like to, it's hard to believe all home secretaries are genuinely idiots and everyone at the home office genuinely useless. More plausible to me is that we're asking them to do an impossible job. I have no faith in the Rwanda option. I doubt it will ever seriously happen. But at least they're not pretending the problem doesn't exist. If a future regime manages to deal with the backlog, promptly process applications and send back those who do not have a claim I will take this back.
Why can the Dutch process 95% of claims within 2 months? Are they magicians? Or do they have the political will and resources that our governments, mostly Tory, but even when new Labour still authoritarian within the Home Office, do not provide?
By all means fund it properly now specify what you are going to fund less than currently to make up the extra budget.
Well there's a billion or so already being spent every year keeping these folk in detention, and rather a lot promised to Rwanda for nothing very useful. A competently run Home Office along the lines suggested might actually cost us less.
That though is merely speculation, more efficient processing on the other hand may increase costs because more decide to come knowing they won't be waiting for years before they can work.
I am highly sceptical of "if we do this it might save us money" somehow everytime we end up spending more
And I'm highly sceptical of the utility of locking up a hundred thousand plus for years at a time for no good reason.
The current policies are both expensive and ineffective.
Where did I say currently what we have is good, just pointing out the call to properly fund comes with a cost.
Everyone on here is always demanding their pet cause be properly funded and no one ever goes and to fund it we can cut this or that
We have focussed obsessively on the short term cuts part of the equation for a long time so most of what can be cut there already has been, and beyond what is sustainable. Governments ignore the long term investements that can generate longer term and sustainable savings as they don't help their re-elections with the benefits coming 10-20 years down the line.
What you are left with is indeed few areas that are easy to cut quickly without causing damage and lots of areas where real investment will save money in the long term. People may not want to hear it but that is where we are.
Build more houses, train more doctors, fund the courts system, repair roads properly instead of covering over potholes, all these are simple examples where it should be obvious that spending more now is both the right thing to do, and cheaper over a lifetime.
You still need the money to spend it now
You cant raise taxes much further You can't borrow with no spending cuts as truss found
Its not I necessarily disagree with you but without the money to spend now its an idea going nowhere.
For now the only solution is
1) work out how much we can raise in tax as a maximum 2) work out how much it costs to fully fund everything 3) work out the priorities of what to full fund 4) cut the rest 5) as cost savings come through and not a moment before we can bring things back in dependent on priority
You can raise taxes.
You can borrow, if you do so sensibly and with a clear plan for how you will see a return on the investment, which is what Truss didn’t do.
No realistically you can't raise taxes much further, certainly not basic rate tax and there aren't enough of the rich to make more than a few billion. I am pretty sure we are getting towards the tipping point of the laffer curve that way and also damn sure even a 1% of basic rate tax is going to turn millions of JAMS into not making ends meet. Sure most on this board could afford it....the minimum wage guy not so much.
Fed up with the just raise taxes people because it really isn't that possible we are already paying more in tax than anytime in the last 30 years
We are paying high taxes and getting poor services. I largely blame the party in power for the last 13 years and hope to see them voted out at the next general election.
I largely blame all parties of the last 30 years and all the middle classed sots wanting their own bunce from the system which is how we ended up with tax credits going to people with higher rate incomes and such like. The majority of the country existing on wages of mid 20k isn't that concerned about your social justice conscience for foreign aid and refugees, the arts, diversity training officers etc, they want services that work and enough left out of their paypacket to actually live.
Then along come people like most pb posters and just wave it away with "oh just raise tax" because you can afford it....maybe you will only eat out 3 nights a week instead of 4......they on the other hand will skip heating or eating because the tax is raised
As with all these things the real answer is to reduce property prices so less money is spent on a mortgage. If you are mortgage free outside London 25 grand per year is a perfectly liveable salary.
Main problem is that the British economy, and a very large percentage of the electorate, is addicted to the crack cocaine of ever rising house prices, sustained by a chronic lack of supply. And the politicians are too terrified of the massed hordes of nimbies to fix the problem, so we're stuck.
Of course, ludicrously overpriced properties do at least offer a theoretical alternative to the problem of the endless ramping of income tax, and other levies on earned incomes, to fund the astronomical cost of state pensions and caring for the demented: tax the crap out of assets instead. But that would result in enraged screaming from the majority of the grey vote who are owner occupiers - a large group, and one closely overlapping with the dreaded nimbies, of whom the politicians are also terrified.
And so we continue, as a nation, to circle the plughole.
If you are an elderly spinster living alone in a large house you already pay a hefty amount in council tax, you don't need a wealth tax on top too thanks
Comments
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/uk/charges-dropped-anti-monarchist-symon-hill-after-charles-proclamation-oxford/
Everyone you meet in Peru sees getting to a First World country as a first step to getting Rich. You have to work, but there are the examples of those who've built home in Peru after making it big overseas. Houses with £1000 stainless steel taps in the kitchen and all the Mayfair style stuff.
The same is true of many other countries.
If you stay - the opportunities are limited. It may be hard for you to believe, but countries like Peru have much less opportunity for a someone at the bottom to rise, than say, the UK.
I think about it with big infrastructure where a lot of countries with either very traditionally centralised cultures or cultures based on long histories of powerful central control, say Japan, China, France) the govt can push through an HS2 type project as even if farmer Jacques grumbles there is an element of “for the greater good as long as I’m compensated” where as English nimbyism goes back to “an Englishman’s home is his castle” mentality.
If you look at things such as the attitudes to looking after elderly parents or children in restaurants there seems to be a more inclusive social attitude elsewhere that isn’t so evident in the Anglo world of getting out there and making money to have your patch of ground.
So we end up rejecting a lot of long term planning because it’s of no benefit to “me”.
https://mobile.twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1639299862985584641
You and @StuartDickson are the personification of the type of racist that is north of the border that hides behind a pretence of saying your support is for localised government. At least @StuartDickson is honest; he admits he is an Anglophobe racist, though you don't need to as it is so obvious.
I guess the anger management programme hasn't worked that well, or have you been bullied by your wife again about how bad your breath smells?
Everyone on here is always demanding their pet cause be properly funded and no one ever goes and to fund it we can cut this or that
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1639289531915444229
"Election Maps UK
@ElectionMapsUK
Westminster Voting Intention:
LAB: 44% (-2)
CON: 29% (+4)
LDM: 10% (+4)
RFM: 6% (-3)
GRN: 5% (-2)
SNP: 3% (=)
Via
@Omnisis
, 23-24 Mar.
Changes w/ 15 Mar."
A smaller number have a bigger Lab lead.
Given about 2/3 of the UK population are monarchists still but only 47% of the UK population are now Christians that is nearly 20% of the UK population for the Church of England to target and only a minority of them will be from other faiths or confirmed atheists
22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.
23 And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich.
24 And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
25 For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Jesus didn't have a problem with wealth as long as it was used to help others, see the parable of the Good Samaritan, Thatcher's favourite
What you are left with is indeed few areas that are easy to cut quickly without causing damage and lots of areas where real investment will save money in the long term. People may not want to hear it but that is where we are.
Build more houses, train more doctors, fund the courts system, repair roads properly instead of covering over potholes, all these are simple examples where it should be obvious that spending more now is both the right thing to do, and cheaper over a lifetime.
Less than 1% attend Church on a typical week.
47% ticked a box.
Have fun everyone. Oh, btw, Malcolm, were you ever a member of the Met Police?
Oh, silly me, of course not. Although you would have felt very at home with the culture, you would be surrounded by the dreaded English and also there would have been the challenge that even for the Met you need to be semi-literate to get in.
There has been a clear movement since February from Labour to the Conservatives.
David Cameron had the right solution nearly a decade ago, say no to people crossing over in boats but expand safe and humanitarian alternatives instead.
Unfortunately putting that right solution into action is easier said than done.
You cant raise taxes much further
You can't borrow with no spending cuts as truss found
Its not I necessarily disagree with you but without the money to spend now its an idea going nowhere.
For now the only solution is
1) work out how much we can raise in tax as a maximum
2) work out how much it costs to fully fund everything
3) work out the priorities of what to full fund
4) cut the rest
5) as cost savings come through and not a moment before we can bring things back in dependent on priority
Jesus was also a fan of prudent investment, see the Parable of the Talents
1. Fire Suella Braverman
I’m happy to hear suggestions for step 2.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/mar/24/everton-charged-with-alleged-breach-of-premier-leagues-ffp-rules?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Nine firms have polls with fieldwork ending since last Thursday, their Con shares are 22-35, mean 28.6, median 29; Lab shares 43-49, mean 45.5, median 45.5.
Leads vary from 10-26, mean 16.5, median 15.
The leads fall into three groups, I would say: PeoplePolling, R&W and YouGov at 20+, Deltapoll at 10 and everyone else at 14-17.
You can borrow, if you do so sensibly and with a clear plan for how you will see a return on the investment, which is what Truss didn’t do.
Most interpretations of the Parable of the Talents do not see it as pro-wealth.
Deliberately walking closely behind someone as they walk home at night
Making obscene or aggressive comments towards a person in the street
Making obscene or offensive gestures towards a person in the street
Obstructing someone's path
Driving or riding a vehicle slowly near someone making a journey
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-65065154
Some of those seem very difficult to very difficult to pin down very definite definitions for. What is an offensive gesture? Is it, what the person on the receiving end deems it to be?
I accept it would not be trivial to assure the markets that this is the right course for the economy but with detailed budgeting and good communication (both of which Truss completely shied away from) I don't think it is unrealistic either.
Though more go once you include those who go only for Christmas, Easter or Mothering Sunday, weddings, baptisms and funerals
https://faithsurvey.co.uk/uk-christianity.html
Leftwing interpretations may not but it is obviously pro savings and prudent investment and not sloth
Fed up with the just raise taxes people because it really isn't that possible we are already paying more in tax than anytime in the last 30 years
The ‘ordinary’ family at No 35: suspected Russian spies await trial in Slovenia
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/24/suspected-russian-spies-trial-slovenia
...On Thursday, the foreign minister, Tanja Fajon, corroborated these claims, telling reporters the arrested couple were in fact Russian citizens, rather than Argentinians.
Unlike “legal” Russian intelligence officers, who are disguised as diplomats at Russian embassies across the world, the illegals operate without any visible links to Moscow. They are trained for years to impersonate foreigners and then sent abroad to gather intelligence. Many have children, who are raised in the cover identity without any idea that their parents are really Russian...
What happens to the kids in these circumstances ?
Then along come people like most pb posters and just wave it away with "oh just raise tax" because you can afford it....maybe you will only eat out 3 nights a week instead of 4......they on the other hand will skip heating or eating because the tax is raised
https://data.oecd.org/tax/tax-revenue.htm
This isn't to say that taxation is an automatic good. But if it is the case that the UK is such a delicate flower that we simply can't support more government spending or taxation, that feels like a problem to investigate and (if possible) fix.
That is LESS THAN 1% of the (UK) population.
Having the Coronation as a religious Church of England event when LESS THAN 1% of the population attend the Church of England is beyond farcical.
It's dying. Literally dying.
paying 60% total on a 40k salary is a lot different to paying 60% on a 25k salary
You can borrow, if you do so sensibly and with a clear plan for how you will see a return on the investment, which is what Truss didn’t do.
To return to the original point, current immigration policy is both expensive and ineffective. And you're defending it.
42.2% of gdp
UK 33.5% of gdp
however norway average wage in us$ 4478
uk average wage = 3300 us$
42.2% of 4478 = 2588 us$
33.5% of 3300 = 2194 us$
So yes taxed higher but still have more left
Farcical is bishops (and HYUFD) thinking it will convert people.
Including those who worship online it is 936,000 ie 1.7% of the UK population and more still including those who go at Christmas and Easter.
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2022/9-december/news/uk/c-of-e-mission-statistics-record-another-anomalous-year
In any case it won't just be a Church of England event, the King will still be it's Supreme Governor but there will be priests from the Roman Catholic Church, ministers from the Church of Scotland and Pentecostal churches at the coronation too as there were at the Queen's funeral. Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and Sikh religious leaders will also be present in the congregation at the coronation and the King will promise to defend all those with faith rather than just the faith as his mother did at her coronation
Which 6 polling companies are included?
Seems like more than 6 reported this week but I guess not regularly enough. What would happen if they were added on weeks they report?
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMar/1/6
An Act for Establishing the Coronation Oath.
II Oath hereafter mentioned to be adminstered, by the Archbishop of Canterbury, &c.
May it please Your Majesties That the Oath herein Mentioned and hereafter Expressed shall and may be Adminstred to their most Excellent Majestyes King William and Queene Mary (whome God long preserve) at the time of Their Coronation in the presence of all Persons that shall be then and there present at the Solemnizeing thereof by the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Archbishop of Yorke or either of them or any other Bishop of this Realme whome the King’s Majesty shall thereunto appoint and who shall be hereby thereunto respectively Authorized which Oath followeth and shall be Administred in this Manner That is to say,
III Form of Oath and Administration thereof.
The Arch-Bishop or Bishop shall say,
Will You solemnely Promise and Sweare to Governe the People of this Kingdome of England and the Dominions thereto belonging according to the Statutes in Parlyament Agreed on and the Laws and Customs of the same?
The King and Queene shall say,
I solemnly Promise soe to doe.
Arch Bishop or Bishop,
Will You to Your power cause Law and Justice in Mercy to be Executed in all Your Judgements.
King and Queene,
I will.
Arch Bishop or Bishop.
Will You to the utmost of Your power Maintaine the Laws of God the true Profession of the Gospell and the Protestant Reformed Religion Established by Law? And will You Preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of this Realme and to the Churches committed to their Charge all such Rights and Priviledges as by Law doe or shall appertaine unto them or any of them.
King and Queene.
All this I Promise to doe.
After this the King and Queene laying His and Her Hand upon the Holy Gospells, shall say,
King and Queene
The things which I have here before promised I will performe and Keepe Soe help me God.
Then the King and Queene shall kisse the Booke.
IV Oath to be adminstered to all future Kings and Queens.
And the said Oath shall be in like manner Adminstred to every King or Queene who shall Succeede to the Imperiall Crowne of this Realme at their respective Coronations by one of the Archbishops or Bishops of this Realme of England for the time being to be thereunto appointed by such King or Queene respectively and in the Presence of all Persons that shall be Attending Assisting or otherwise present at such their respective Coronations Any Law Statute or Usage to the contrary notwithstanding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_average_wage
It's not the case that pay in the UK is particularly bad (though there is the whole London vs the rest issue). So it must be something else; and the standout obvious first thing to check is the price of renting or buying somewhere to live.
https://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Europe/rent
Of course, ludicrously overpriced properties do at least offer a theoretical alternative to the problem of the endless ramping of income tax, and other levies on earned incomes, to fund the astronomical cost of state pensions and caring for the demented: tax the crap out of assets instead. But that would result in enraged screaming from the majority of the grey vote who are owner occupiers - a large group, and one closely overlapping with the dreaded nimbies, of whom the politicians are also terrified.
And so we continue, as a nation, to circle the plughole.
Cost of living in Norway is, on average, 33.6% higher than in United Kingdom. according to this site:
https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/country_result.jsp?country=Norway&displayCurrency=GBP
Number of Properties/Population