The telegraph is speculating that net migration for the past year, to be announced in May 25, will be around ONE MILLION
Stupefyingly huge
How accurate are the Telegraph, though, when they speculate about things?
Oddly it's the Tele and their ilk who now seem keenest to rub the Right's nose in diversity. I wonder why?
They seem to like to foster fears of the country 'getting swamped'. It can't be good for the mindset of their loyal readers hearing this sort of thing day in day out.
Despite ‘Brexit not being about immigration’ I guess Brexit betrayed is the long term strategy.
The telegraph is speculating that net migration for the past year, to be announced in May 25, will be around ONE MILLION
Stupefyingly huge
It's OK because the government is controlling immigration now that we have taken back control.
Immigration is the one Brexit benefit according to the OBR analysis. Loss of investment and suppression of trade worse than it expected, but higher than expected immigration partly compensated, confirming their prediction of an overall 4% damage to the economy caused by Brexit.
I think this means the UK will necessarily be more invested in high immigration outside of the EU than it was as a member. It no longer has the choice.
I may be misunderstanding this, but surely there is no point to (picking numbers out of the air) a 1% increase in GNP if we also have a 1% increase in population? The country gets richer, but those riches have to be shared more widely - so individually, we don't get any richer.
Immigration is a wash, I believe. Each immigrant will add as much to the economy as they increase the population. But overall GDP does matter for certain things including tax receipts and immigration can help productivity (another Brexit loss).
In which case, immigration is going to be largely bad for us - the pressure it causes on housing alone does more damage than the benefits, and we should be targeting net zero migration.
My suggestion would be that we ditch almost all the currently permitted "skilled worker" immigration, requiring you to need a job offer at £75k to come.
I would also tighten up the family reunion rules, in particular blocking family reunion immigration unless one of the persons is a British Citizen (not merely someone with indefinite leave to remain).
The student numbers thing is complicated - in theory students shouldn't add to the net migration numbers (for each one who comes, another should go) - what we need to do is to stop the leakage where people come as students and then don't go - given this is currently something like 26% of those coming on student visas it needs fixing urgently.
Nevertheless I suspect we are in a high immigration post Brexit world. I don't see it changing.
"Royal fan detained for 13 hours after 'wrongful arrest' at King's coronation
Alice Chambers was an innocent bystander waiting to see the King drive past before being crowned at Westminster Abbey when she was arrested and locked up for the whole day."
I was assures yesterday this was a non-issue and the Met had behaved perfectly throughout.
Labour need to split up the Met.
Why are you blaming the police and not the protestors for things like this happening? The question to you is, if I placed you in overall charge for managing the security of the Coronation, what would have been different?
I was there, and I told the protestors there what they could and couldn’t do - no noises to alarm the horses, no going beyond the barricades, and if someone’s come all from Australia to enjoy the vibe and ultimate history making pageantry (that was indeed awesome) would it be fair to stick their placards up so they can’t see it and chant over the bands and bagpipes?
I told the protestors they shouldn’t be there. They were exorcising their rights to protest without any thought to the responsibilities which come with the right to protest, that is injury to others. You just can’t have any protest a protest group thinks up, protest just can’t be anything goes. The right to protest comes with responsibility on protestors too.
You really are a loon
My protest is to glue myself to Farooq, he won’t have have a problem with it, because he believes the right to protest is alright to do absolute anything you want, that’s the protesters right. Rights come without any duty to be responsible when using them.
What are we having for dinner?
No protesters have the right to protest peacefully. When they cross that line that is when the police should get involved.
What they shouldn't be doing is arresting people before the protesting begins (which they did last weekend).
"Royal fan detained for 13 hours after 'wrongful arrest' at King's coronation
Alice Chambers was an innocent bystander waiting to see the King drive past before being crowned at Westminster Abbey when she was arrested and locked up for the whole day."
I was assures yesterday this was a non-issue and the Met had behaved perfectly throughout.
Labour need to split up the Met.
Why are you blaming the police and not the protestors for things like this happening? The question to you is, if I placed you in overall charge for managing the security of the Coronation, what would have been different?
I was there, and I told the protestors there what they could and couldn’t do - no noises to alarm the horses, no going beyond the barricades, and if someone’s come all from Australia to enjoy the vibe and ultimate history making pageantry (that was indeed awesome) would it be fair to stick their placards up so they can’t see it and chant over the bands and bagpipes?
I told the protestors they shouldn’t be there. They were exorcising their rights to protest without any thought to the responsibilities which come with the right to protest, that is injury to others. You just can’t have any protest a protest group thinks up, protest just can’t be anything goes. The right to protest comes with responsibility on protestors too.
You really are a loon
I think that was intended ironically, FWIW. At least I hope it was.
Apologies Farooq. If I can only glue myself to one person who doesn’t appreciate rights come with some responsibility, I choose Nigel.
What will we be watching tonight? South Korean? I’ll bring some tteobokki. I do have the hots for the China girl from Aespa.
So net migration of 700,000. That’s three Milton Keyneses.
How many housing units were completed last year?
Totally unsustainable. This will lead to a populist backlash eventually.
Now, last year’s figures will be somewhat unusual, because of Ukraine and Hong Kong. The Ukranians are mostly women and children to intend to leave at the earliest opportunity once the war finishes, and the vast majority are not in their own housing but staying with families in the UK. The HK immigrants were a one-off as the country got taken over by China, but will likely be staying for the long term
Yes, at some point, there will need to be radical solutions.
My suggestion, would be a variation on how immigration works in where I live. If there’s a need for low-skilled immigrants, you offer a number of single people under 30 from most countries, a two-year non-renewable work permit. You’d need to limit the numbers, to protect British unskilled workers and stop a race back to minimum wage that we had under FoM, but the important thing is that these are temporary migrants expected to leave once their visa expires.
Not sure inviting lots of people in but explicitly making sure they are not aligned with the long term of the UK but instead of working out how cash they can extract in 2 years is sensible.
How about we recognise the reality of our demographics means we will have immigration, whatever politicians promise, so we get on with builiding the necessary houses and infrastructure instead of pretending?
My brother got a similar visa in Australia. He stayed there for just under a year, did a few different jobs. It was make very clear to him, that he had no recourse to public funds, had to leave when his visa expired, and that he’d be arrested if he overstayed.
I say we look at what works elsewhere in the world, rather than trying to re-invent the wheel.
Australians are at least as unhappy with how migration works in their country as we are here. It is still a source of division and repeated political failure.
Btw I concocted and procured those AI photos in about 5 minutes
I could have spent 30 minutes honing the prompt and getting even more believable images to the extent NO ONE could possibly know if they are real or not
You can reverse image search them on Yandex (way better than Google but Putin gets your NI number). If they don't show up on that they are probably AI crap.
No. Any image searcher is about to be swamped by trillions - literally, trillions - of fake AI images. No machine will be able to keep up with the machines
Yes, humanity will have to radically reassess its relationship with the internet. Some bits will continue as before - I can't see it much affecting the enlightened dialogues of PB for example - but other bits will be totally unusable. But will that necessarily be a bad thing?
"Royal fan detained for 13 hours after 'wrongful arrest' at King's coronation
Alice Chambers was an innocent bystander waiting to see the King drive past before being crowned at Westminster Abbey when she was arrested and locked up for the whole day."
I was assures yesterday this was a non-issue and the Met had behaved perfectly throughout.
Labour need to split up the Met.
Why are you blaming the police and not the protestors for things like this happening? The question to you is, if I placed you in overall charge for managing the security of the Coronation, what would have been different?
I was there, and I told the protestors there what they could and couldn’t do - no noises to alarm the horses, no going beyond the barricades, and if someone’s come all from Australia to enjoy the vibe and ultimate history making pageantry (that was indeed awesome) would it be fair to stick their placards up so they can’t see it and chant over the bands and bagpipes?
I told the protestors they shouldn’t be there. They were exorcising their rights to protest without any thought to the responsibilities which come with the right to protest, that is injury to others. You just can’t have any protest a protest group thinks up, protest just can’t be anything goes. The right to protest comes with responsibility on protestors too.
You really are a loon
My protest is to glue myself to Farooq, he won’t have have a problem with it, because he believes the right to protest is alright to do absolute anything you want, that’s the protesters right. Rights come without any duty to be responsible when using them.
So net migration of 700,000. That’s three Milton Keyneses.
How many housing units were completed last year?
Totally unsustainable. This will lead to a populist backlash eventually.
I assume the government chooses more immigration because it thinks it necessary. Noteworthy the big increase started after Brexit. Did Brexit make immigration more necessary?
I assume the government chooses more immigration because the political pain in restricting immigration is greater than the political pain in not restricting it. The trying-to-restrict-immigration-is-bad lobby seem rather more powerful than the allowing-immigration-is-bad lobby.
"Royal fan detained for 13 hours after 'wrongful arrest' at King's coronation
Alice Chambers was an innocent bystander waiting to see the King drive past before being crowned at Westminster Abbey when she was arrested and locked up for the whole day."
I was assures yesterday this was a non-issue and the Met had behaved perfectly throughout.
Labour need to split up the Met.
Why are you blaming the police and not the protestors for things like this happening? The question to you is, if I placed you in overall charge for managing the security of the Coronation, what would have been different?
I was there, and I told the protestors there what they could and couldn’t do - no noises to alarm the horses, no going beyond the barricades, and if someone’s come all from Australia to enjoy the vibe and ultimate history making pageantry (that was indeed awesome) would it be fair to stick their placards up so they can’t see it and chant over the bands and bagpipes?
I told the protestors they shouldn’t be there. They were exorcising their rights to protest without any thought to the responsibilities which come with the right to protest, that is injury to others. You just can’t have any protest a protest group thinks up, protest just can’t be anything goes. The right to protest comes with responsibility on protestors too.
You really are a loon
My protest is to glue myself to Farooq, he won’t have have a problem with it, because he believes the right to protest is alright to do absolute anything you want, that’s the protesters right. Rights come without any duty to be responsible when using them.
What are we having for dinner?
No protesters have the right to protest peacefully. When they cross that line that is when the police should get involved.
What they shouldn't be doing is arresting people before the protesting begins (which they did last weekend).
Anti monarchy and stop oil weren’t the only part of the security risk though. Terrorism. Bombs. Assassination. There’s far worse failings we could be blaming the security operation for failing today.
And how terrorists, and also those with intent “to cross that line” as you put it would blend in with the other protesters, use them as cover exploiting peaceful protests - which is another reason why the protestors shouldn’t have turned up in my honest opinion, an understanding and concern in how their protest could have been exploited.
If you wanted to blow up the London Marathon, you would dress as a Wookie for sure.
The telegraph is speculating that net migration for the past year, to be announced in May 25, will be around ONE MILLION
Stupefyingly huge
How accurate are the Telegraph, though, when they speculate about things?
Oddly it's the Tele and their ilk who now seem keenest to rub the Right's nose in diversity. I wonder why?
They seem to like to foster fears of the country 'getting swamped'. It can't be good for the mindset of their loyal readers hearing this sort of thing day in day out.
Despite ‘Brexit not being about immigration’ I guess Brexit betrayed is the long term strategy.
That's a theme. Eg we see the same with the 'bonfire of EU regs' (not). Brexit comes up against Reality, takes a beating, limps back to its corner, leaving its fans with a choice between "Oh no, our man's shit, he's a loser!" and "boo hiss, the fix is in, he's been nobbled!" - and all the true fans will go for the latter.
"Royal fan detained for 13 hours after 'wrongful arrest' at King's coronation
Alice Chambers was an innocent bystander waiting to see the King drive past before being crowned at Westminster Abbey when she was arrested and locked up for the whole day."
I was assures yesterday this was a non-issue and the Met had behaved perfectly throughout.
Labour need to split up the Met.
Why are you blaming the police and not the protestors for things like this happening? The question to you is, if I placed you in overall charge for managing the security of the Coronation, what would have been different?
I was there, and I told the protestors there what they could and couldn’t do - no noises to alarm the horses, no going beyond the barricades, and if someone’s come all from Australia to enjoy the vibe and ultimate history making pageantry (that was indeed awesome) would it be fair to stick their placards up so they can’t see it and chant over the bands and bagpipes?
I told the protestors they shouldn’t be there. They were exorcising their rights to protest without any thought to the responsibilities which come with the right to protest, that is injury to others. You just can’t have any protest a protest group thinks up, protest just can’t be anything goes. The right to protest comes with responsibility on protestors too.
You really are a loon
My protest is to glue myself to Farooq, he won’t have have a problem with it, because he believes the right to protest is alright to do absolute anything you want, that’s the protesters right. Rights come without any duty to be responsible when using them.
The telegraph is speculating that net migration for the past year, to be announced in May 25, will be around ONE MILLION
Stupefyingly huge
How accurate are the Telegraph, though, when they speculate about things?
Oddly it's the Tele and their ilk who now seem keenest to rub the Right's nose in diversity. I wonder why?
They seem to like to foster fears of the country 'getting swamped'. It can't be good for the mindset of their loyal readers hearing this sort of thing day in day out.
Despite ‘Brexit not being about immigration’ I guess Brexit betrayed is the long term strategy.
Perhaps the problem is there is no longer an exodus of scumbag Remainers like myself who had plans to retire to Southern France were it not for Brexit. I am sure I am exactly the nerwelltodo that Johnsonian Conservatives would have liked to see the back of.
Hah, well I am staying, and it's all down to you, Johnsonian Brexiteers!
So net migration of 700,000. That’s three Milton Keyneses.
How many housing units were completed last year?
Totally unsustainable. This will lead to a populist backlash eventually.
I assume the government chooses more immigration because it thinks it necessary. Noteworthy the big increase started after Brexit. Did Brexit make immigration more necessary?
I assume the government chooses more immigration because the political pain in restricting immigration is greater than the political pain in not restricting it. The trying-to-restrict-immigration-is-bad lobby seem rather more powerful than the allowing-immigration-is-bad lobby.
I think this is right, but why has the balance changed from the second lobby to the first, which seems to be linked with Brexit? Is that because the economic damage of Brexit means the government feels compelled to use an immigration lever available to it? Or does the political failure of the Brexit project weaken the allowing-immigration-is-bad lobby?
Add I don't expect this policy to change under Labour.
The telegraph is speculating that net migration for the past year, to be announced in May 25, will be around ONE MILLION
Stupefyingly huge
How accurate are the Telegraph, though, when they speculate about things?
Oddly it's the Tele and their ilk who now seem keenest to rub the Right's nose in diversity. I wonder why?
They seem to like to foster fears of the country 'getting swamped'. It can't be good for the mindset of their loyal readers hearing this sort of thing day in day out.
Despite ‘Brexit not being about immigration’ I guess Brexit betrayed is the long term strategy.
That's a theme. Eg we see the same with the 'bonfire of EU regs' (not). Brexit comes up against Reality, takes a beating, limps back to its corner, leaving its fans with a choice between "Oh no, our man's shit, he's a loser!" and "boo hiss, the fix is in, he's been nobbled!" - and all the true fans will go for the latter.
They are doing away with the Working Time Directive which was harmonised during the Major Government. I remembered this because I was tasked with lobbying my MP, Gwilym Jones by my company to reject the regulation. Gwilym was ejected in GE1997.
I would just ask. Can anyone name a tangible Brexit benefit as of right now for anyone under the age of 45? Thanks.
Wage increases for the unskilled. Sir Stuart Rose was right.
Millions of British people, for whom previously the minimum wage was the maximum wage, now find themselves earning £12-£14 an hour, as employers fight to fill vacancies.
Also a change in the balance of the relationship between employer and employee, now that there’s no longer an unlimited supply of minimum-wage labour available.
Things that should attract widespread support from those on the political left, but for some reason don’t.
"Royal fan detained for 13 hours after 'wrongful arrest' at King's coronation
Alice Chambers was an innocent bystander waiting to see the King drive past before being crowned at Westminster Abbey when she was arrested and locked up for the whole day."
I was assures yesterday this was a non-issue and the Met had behaved perfectly throughout.
Labour need to split up the Met.
Why are you blaming the police and not the protestors for things like this happening? The question to you is, if I placed you in overall charge for managing the security of the Coronation, what would have been different?
I was there, and I told the protestors there what they could and couldn’t do - no noises to alarm the horses, no going beyond the barricades, and if someone’s come all from Australia to enjoy the vibe and ultimate history making pageantry (that was indeed awesome) would it be fair to stick their placards up so they can’t see it and chant over the bands and bagpipes?
I told the protestors they shouldn’t be there. They were exorcising their rights to protest without any thought to the responsibilities which come with the right to protest, that is injury to others. You just can’t have any protest a protest group thinks up, protest just can’t be anything goes. The right to protest comes with responsibility on protestors too.
You really are a loon
My protest is to glue myself to Farooq, he won’t have have a problem with it, because he believes the right to protest is alright to do absolute anything you want, that’s the protesters right. Rights come without any duty to be responsible when using them.
What are we having for dinner?
No protesters have the right to protest peacefully. When they cross that line that is when the police should get involved.
What they shouldn't be doing is arresting people before the protesting begins (which they did last weekend).
Anti monarchy and stop oil weren’t the only part of the security risk though. Terrorism. Bombs. Assassination. There’s far worse failings we could be blaming the security operation for failing today.
And how terrorists, and also those with intent “to cross that line” as you put it would blend in with the other protesters, use them as cover exploiting peaceful protests - which is another reason why the protestors shouldn’t have turned up in my honest opinion, an understanding and concern in how their protest could have been exploited.
If you wanted to blow up the London Marathon, you would dress as a Wookie for sure.
If we follow your line of thinking, then we should ban all protests " just in case". You happy with that?
The girl on the right (As we look at it) / her left has an extraordinarily long forearm. Also no thumbs showing, though they could be hidden.
Perhaps it is a real photo though and I'm doing a disservice.
Congratulations. You are the first PB-er to guess that these images are entirely fake. The women, the clothes, the locations, everything
Nobody would really be crass enough to do a Vogue photo in a war zone.
Leon: AI has advanced to the point where pictures are no longer believable enough to prove a point DuraAce: Yes, but this picture proves my point Viewcode: facepalm
Did we have posts in 2015 that said Ed Miliband was set to be PM?
I remember genuine fear in 1996 from my Regional Manager and the MD, that there would be an imminent change of government and the business world would implode. Their last recollection of a Labour Government was the Winter of Discontent, so I guess they felt they had a point.
I would just ask. Can anyone name a tangible Brexit benefit as of right now for anyone under the age of 45? Thanks.
Wage increases for the unskilled. Sir Stuart Rose was right.
Millions of British people, for whom previously the minimum wage was the maximum wage, now find themselves earning £12-£14 an hour, as employers fight to fill vacancies.
Also a change in the balance of the relationship between employer and employee, now that there’s no longer an unlimited supply of minimum-wage labour available.
Things that should attract widespread support from those on the political left, but for some reason don’t.
"Royal fan detained for 13 hours after 'wrongful arrest' at King's coronation
Alice Chambers was an innocent bystander waiting to see the King drive past before being crowned at Westminster Abbey when she was arrested and locked up for the whole day."
I was assures yesterday this was a non-issue and the Met had behaved perfectly throughout.
Labour need to split up the Met.
Why are you blaming the police and not the protestors for things like this happening? The question to you is, if I placed you in overall charge for managing the security of the Coronation, what would have been different?
I was there, and I told the protestors there what they could and couldn’t do - no noises to alarm the horses, no going beyond the barricades, and if someone’s come all from Australia to enjoy the vibe and ultimate history making pageantry (that was indeed awesome) would it be fair to stick their placards up so they can’t see it and chant over the bands and bagpipes?
I told the protestors they shouldn’t be there. They were exorcising their rights to protest without any thought to the responsibilities which come with the right to protest, that is injury to others. You just can’t have any protest a protest group thinks up, protest just can’t be anything goes. The right to protest comes with responsibility on protestors too.
You really are a loon
My protest is to glue myself to Farooq, he won’t have have a problem with it, because he believes the right to protest is alright to do absolute anything you want, that’s the protesters right. Rights come without any duty to be responsible when using them.
What are we having for dinner?
No protesters have the right to protest peacefully. When they cross that line that is when the police should get involved.
What they shouldn't be doing is arresting people before the protesting begins (which they did last weekend).
Anti monarchy and stop oil weren’t the only part of the security risk though. Terrorism. Bombs. Assassination. There’s far worse failings we could be blaming the security operation for failing today.
And how terrorists, and also those with intent “to cross that line” as you put it would blend in with the other protesters, use them as cover exploiting peaceful protests - which is another reason why the protestors shouldn’t have turned up in my honest opinion, an understanding and concern in how their protest could have been exploited.
If you wanted to blow up the London Marathon, you would dress as a Wookie for sure.
Sounds like an excellent argument for banning fancy dress in marathons. Or maybe altogether, just to be on the safe side.
I would just ask. Can anyone name a tangible Brexit benefit as of right now for anyone under the age of 45? Thanks.
I don't think the benefits for those 45 and over are any more apparent. Other than the thrill of 'We beat those establishment elitist sods in the referendum' I can't see how Brexit has enhanced the happiness of the British population whatsoever. Though I can name several ways in which it's decreased happiness.
I would just ask. Can anyone name a tangible Brexit benefit as of right now for anyone under the age of 45? Thanks.
Increased wages for lower skilled workers. Granted the benefit of that has now been eroded by inflation. But inflation has happened everywhere.
Harder to say what the benefit has been for the graduate class, not least because far fewer restrictions were placed on the arrival of the knowledge class.
All quite difficult to say for sure because we will never have a counterfactual, and so much has happened in the last seven years that it is hard to unpick the impacts of one thing from another.
"Royal fan detained for 13 hours after 'wrongful arrest' at King's coronation
Alice Chambers was an innocent bystander waiting to see the King drive past before being crowned at Westminster Abbey when she was arrested and locked up for the whole day."
I was assures yesterday this was a non-issue and the Met had behaved perfectly throughout.
Labour need to split up the Met.
Why are you blaming the police and not the protestors for things like this happening? The question to you is, if I placed you in overall charge for managing the security of the Coronation, what would have been different?
I was there, and I told the protestors there what they could and couldn’t do - no noises to alarm the horses, no going beyond the barricades, and if someone’s come all from Australia to enjoy the vibe and ultimate history making pageantry (that was indeed awesome) would it be fair to stick their placards up so they can’t see it and chant over the bands and bagpipes?
I told the protestors they shouldn’t be there. They were exorcising their rights to protest without any thought to the responsibilities which come with the right to protest, that is injury to others. You just can’t have any protest a protest group thinks up, protest just can’t be anything goes. The right to protest comes with responsibility on protestors too.
You really are a loon
My protest is to glue myself to Farooq, he won’t have have a problem with it, because he believes the right to protest is alright to do absolute anything you want, that’s the protesters right. Rights come without any duty to be responsible when using them.
What are we having for dinner?
Reheated Coronation quiche, obvs.
I’ll bring that with me.
BTW I noticed this the other day as an alternative - rather surprised it is claimed not to exist, becausae my mother used to make bacon and egg pie (nothing else in the filling) with thin shortcrust pastry: no use for herbivores obvs. Though we had it for high tea, not breakfast,
"Royal fan detained for 13 hours after 'wrongful arrest' at King's coronation
Alice Chambers was an innocent bystander waiting to see the King drive past before being crowned at Westminster Abbey when she was arrested and locked up for the whole day."
I was assures yesterday this was a non-issue and the Met had behaved perfectly throughout.
Labour need to split up the Met.
Why are you blaming the police and not the protestors for things like this happening? The question to you is, if I placed you in overall charge for managing the security of the Coronation, what would have been different?
I was there, and I told the protestors there what they could and couldn’t do - no noises to alarm the horses, no going beyond the barricades, and if someone’s come all from Australia to enjoy the vibe and ultimate history making pageantry (that was indeed awesome) would it be fair to stick their placards up so they can’t see it and chant over the bands and bagpipes?
I told the protestors they shouldn’t be there. They were exorcising their rights to protest without any thought to the responsibilities which come with the right to protest, that is injury to others. You just can’t have any protest a protest group thinks up, protest just can’t be anything goes. The right to protest comes with responsibility on protestors too.
You really are a loon
My protest is to glue myself to Farooq, he won’t have have a problem with it, because he believes the right to protest is alright to do absolute anything you want, that’s the protesters right. Rights come without any duty to be responsible when using them.
What are we having for dinner?
No, I don't believe that. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone who actually said those things?
I do, however, believe that holding placards and shouting "not my king" on a public street to protest against a coronation is entirely legitimate. Just as legitimate as standing on the same street and waving a tiny flag and cheering as the king goes past. Both actions are equivalent and neither should be banned.
TBF it appears the police did manage to lock up a nice royalist lady too.
So net migration of 700,000. That’s three Milton Keyneses.
How many housing units were completed last year?
Totally unsustainable. This will lead to a populist backlash eventually.
I assume the government chooses more immigration because it thinks it necessary. Noteworthy the big increase started after Brexit. Did Brexit make immigration more necessary?
I assume the government chooses more immigration because the political pain in restricting immigration is greater than the political pain in not restricting it. The trying-to-restrict-immigration-is-bad lobby seem rather more powerful than the allowing-immigration-is-bad lobby.
I think this is right, but why has the balance changed from the second lobby to the first, which seems to be linked with Brexit? Is that because the economic damage of Brexit means the government feels compelled to use an immigration lever available to it? Or does the political failure of the Brexit project weaken the allowing-immigration-is-bad lobby?
Add I don't expect this policy to change under Labour.
A really simple solution to immigration. Link number of people allowed to immigrate to number of new homes built in any given year. No new homes, no more immigrants.
Fwiw, I am not bothered by 1m new immigrants in the slightest if enough homes and infrastructure (schools, hospitals etc) can be built to support them.
Immigration should be directly linked to capacity of housing and other key services, and this should be a quota enshrined in law.
"Royal fan detained for 13 hours after 'wrongful arrest' at King's coronation
Alice Chambers was an innocent bystander waiting to see the King drive past before being crowned at Westminster Abbey when she was arrested and locked up for the whole day."
I was assures yesterday this was a non-issue and the Met had behaved perfectly throughout.
Labour need to split up the Met.
Why are you blaming the police and not the protestors for things like this happening? The question to you is, if I placed you in overall charge for managing the security of the Coronation, what would have been different?
I was there, and I told the protestors there what they could and couldn’t do - no noises to alarm the horses, no going beyond the barricades, and if someone’s come all from Australia to enjoy the vibe and ultimate history making pageantry (that was indeed awesome) would it be fair to stick their placards up so they can’t see it and chant over the bands and bagpipes?
I told the protestors they shouldn’t be there. They were exorcising their rights to protest without any thought to the responsibilities which come with the right to protest, that is injury to others. You just can’t have any protest a protest group thinks up, protest just can’t be anything goes. The right to protest comes with responsibility on protestors too.
You really are a loon
My protest is to glue myself to Farooq, he won’t have have a problem with it, because he believes the right to protest is alright to do absolute anything you want, that’s the protesters right. Rights come without any duty to be responsible when using them.
What are we having for dinner?
Reheated Coronation quiche, obvs.
I’ll bring that with me.
BTW I noticed this the other day as an alternative - rather surprised it is claimed not to exist, becausae my mother used to make bacon and egg pie (nothing else in the filling) with thin shortcrust pastry: no use for herbivores obvs. Though we had it for high tea, not breakfast,
I would just ask. Can anyone name a tangible Brexit benefit as of right now for anyone under the age of 45? Thanks.
Increased wages for lower skilled workers. Granted the benefit of that has now been eroded by inflation. But inflation has happened everywhere.
Harder to say what the benefit has been for the graduate class, not least because far fewer restrictions were placed on the arrival of the knowledge class.
All quite difficult to say for sure because we will never have a counterfactual, and so much has happened in the last seven years that it is hard to unpick the impacts of one thing from another.
Have the wages for lower skilled workers notably increased? The fact that we now have record levels of immigration - the government must want them here for some purpose - kind of suggests not.
So net migration of 700,000. That’s three Milton Keyneses.
How many housing units were completed last year?
Totally unsustainable. This will lead to a populist backlash eventually.
I assume the government chooses more immigration because it thinks it necessary. Noteworthy the big increase started after Brexit. Did Brexit make immigration more necessary?
I assume the government chooses more immigration because the political pain in restricting immigration is greater than the political pain in not restricting it. The trying-to-restrict-immigration-is-bad lobby seem rather more powerful than the allowing-immigration-is-bad lobby.
I think this is right, but why has the balance changed from the second lobby to the first, which seems to be linked with Brexit? Is that because the economic damage of Brexit means the government feels compelled to use an immigration lever available to it? Or does the political failure of the Brexit project weaken the allowing-immigration-is-bad lobby?
Add I don't expect this policy to change under Labour.
A really simple solution to immigration. Link number of people allowed to immigrate to number of new homes built in any given year. No new homes, no more immigrants.
Fwiw, I am not bothered by 1m new immigrants in the slightest if enough homes and infrastructure (schools, hospitals etc) can be built to support them.
Immigration should be directly linked to capacity of housing and other key services, and this should be a quota enshrined in law.
I've heard some silly ideas on this forum but this...
That must be wrong, along with other recent polls. We were assured in April that the Lab-Con gap was narrowing and that it wouldn't be long before Labour's lead was down to single figures.
So net migration of 700,000. That’s three Milton Keyneses.
How many housing units were completed last year?
Totally unsustainable. This will lead to a populist backlash eventually.
I assume the government chooses more immigration because it thinks it necessary. Noteworthy the big increase started after Brexit. Did Brexit make immigration more necessary?
I assume the government chooses more immigration because the political pain in restricting immigration is greater than the political pain in not restricting it. The trying-to-restrict-immigration-is-bad lobby seem rather more powerful than the allowing-immigration-is-bad lobby.
I think this is right, but why has the balance changed from the second lobby to the first, which seems to be linked with Brexit? Is that because the economic damage of Brexit means the government feels compelled to use an immigration lever available to it? Or does the political failure of the Brexit project weaken the allowing-immigration-is-bad lobby?
Add I don't expect this policy to change under Labour.
A really simple solution to immigration. Link number of people allowed to immigrate to number of new homes built in any given year. No new homes, no more immigrants.
Fwiw, I am not bothered by 1m new immigrants in the slightest if enough homes and infrastructure (schools, hospitals etc) can be built to support them.
Immigration should be directly linked to capacity of housing and other key services, and this should be a quota enshrined in law.
I've heard some silly ideas on this forum but this...
The silly idea is thinking we can go on importing 500k-1m a year, while building fewer than 220k new homes per year.
The telegraph is speculating that net migration for the past year, to be announced in May 25, will be around ONE MILLION
Stupefyingly huge
How accurate are the Telegraph, though, when they speculate about things?
Oddly it's the Tele and their ilk who now seem keenest to rub the Right's nose in diversity. I wonder why?
They seem to like to foster fears of the country 'getting swamped'. It can't be good for the mindset of their loyal readers hearing this sort of thing day in day out.
Despite ‘Brexit not being about immigration’ I guess Brexit betrayed is the long term strategy.
That's a theme. Eg we see the same with the 'bonfire of EU regs' (not). Brexit comes up against Reality, takes a beating, limps back to its corner, leaving its fans with a choice between "Oh no, our man's shit, he's a loser!" and "boo hiss, the fix is in, he's been nobbled!" - and all the true fans will go for the latter.
They are doing away with the Working Time Directive which was harmonised during the Major Government. I remembered this because I was tasked with lobbying my MP, Gwilym Jones by my company to reject the regulation. Gwilym was ejected in GE1997.
That one has long been in the sights, hasn't it. I don't know why anyone other than the obvious would support the right to make people work very long hours.
That must be wrong, along with other recent polls. We were assured in April that the Lab-Con gap was narrowing and that it wouldn't be long before Labour's lead was down to single figures.
Outlier after outlier.
I am watching BBC World News in the hotel lobby and Jeremy Hunt is on saying how the economy is rockin'. Talking Heads "Psycho Killer" playing in the background.
"Royal fan detained for 13 hours after 'wrongful arrest' at King's coronation
Alice Chambers was an innocent bystander waiting to see the King drive past before being crowned at Westminster Abbey when she was arrested and locked up for the whole day."
I was assures yesterday this was a non-issue and the Met had behaved perfectly throughout.
Labour need to split up the Met.
Why are you blaming the police and not the protestors for things like this happening? The question to you is, if I placed you in overall charge for managing the security of the Coronation, what would have been different?
I was there, and I told the protestors there what they could and couldn’t do - no noises to alarm the horses, no going beyond the barricades, and if someone’s come all from Australia to enjoy the vibe and ultimate history making pageantry (that was indeed awesome) would it be fair to stick their placards up so they can’t see it and chant over the bands and bagpipes?
I told the protestors they shouldn’t be there. They were exorcising their rights to protest without any thought to the responsibilities which come with the right to protest, that is injury to others. You just can’t have any protest a protest group thinks up, protest just can’t be anything goes. The right to protest comes with responsibility on protestors too.
You really are a loon
My protest is to glue myself to Farooq, he won’t have have a problem with it, because he believes the right to protest is alright to do absolute anything you want, that’s the protesters right. Rights come without any duty to be responsible when using them.
What are we having for dinner?
Reheated Coronation quiche, obvs.
I’ll bring that with me.
BTW I noticed this the other day as an alternative - rather surprised it is claimed not to exist, becausae my mother used to make bacon and egg pie (nothing else in the filling) with thin shortcrust pastry: no use for herbivores obvs. Though we had it for high tea, not breakfast,
It's also perfectly possible, indeed delightful, to have a Scotch pie for breakfast
Mm, that too, though I preferred a well-fired macaroni cheese one if I had got up late and wanted breakfast in the office. Different pastry, though: my mother's pie was not a water pastry but a flakier shortcrust one.
I would just ask. Can anyone name a tangible Brexit benefit as of right now for anyone under the age of 45? Thanks.
Increased wages for lower skilled workers. Granted the benefit of that has now been eroded by inflation. But inflation has happened everywhere.
Harder to say what the benefit has been for the graduate class, not least because far fewer restrictions were placed on the arrival of the knowledge class.
All quite difficult to say for sure because we will never have a counterfactual, and so much has happened in the last seven years that it is hard to unpick the impacts of one thing from another.
Have the wages for lower skilled workers notably increased? The fact that we now have record levels of immigration - the government must want them here for some purpose - kind of suggests not.
Well they did, very quickly after Brexit. But then, covid/Ukraine-triggered inflation, and everyone got poorer. I think you over-credit the government with planning immigration in response to demand or otherwise. My take is that government is incapable of restricting immigration in a way which it is willing to take the political hit for doing so. It is just reacting (or not) to events. Ukrainians and HK Chinese are special cases, of course.
So net migration of 700,000. That’s three Milton Keyneses.
How many housing units were completed last year?
Totally unsustainable. This will lead to a populist backlash eventually.
I assume the government chooses more immigration because it thinks it necessary. Noteworthy the big increase started after Brexit. Did Brexit make immigration more necessary?
I assume the government chooses more immigration because the political pain in restricting immigration is greater than the political pain in not restricting it. The trying-to-restrict-immigration-is-bad lobby seem rather more powerful than the allowing-immigration-is-bad lobby.
I think this is right, but why has the balance changed from the second lobby to the first, which seems to be linked with Brexit? Is that because the economic damage of Brexit means the government feels compelled to use an immigration lever available to it? Or does the political failure of the Brexit project weaken the allowing-immigration-is-bad lobby?
Add I don't expect this policy to change under Labour.
A really simple solution to immigration. Link number of people allowed to immigrate to number of new homes built in any given year. No new homes, no more immigrants.
Fwiw, I am not bothered by 1m new immigrants in the slightest if enough homes and infrastructure (schools, hospitals etc) can be built to support them.
Immigration should be directly linked to capacity of housing and other key services, and this should be a quota enshrined in law.
So your solution is to make the labour market as flexible and responsive as planning departments? I might see a flaw in this idea.
The solution, is for everyone to be in favour of giving planning departments the most almighty kick up the arse.
Housebuilding needs to continually outgrow the population, otherwise young people will find it impossible to buy houses.
If immigration is 3x Milton Keynes, then housebuilding needs to be at least 4x Milton Keynes, if not 5x.
So net migration of 700,000. That’s three Milton Keyneses.
How many housing units were completed last year?
Totally unsustainable. This will lead to a populist backlash eventually.
I assume the government chooses more immigration because it thinks it necessary. Noteworthy the big increase started after Brexit. Did Brexit make immigration more necessary?
I assume the government chooses more immigration because the political pain in restricting immigration is greater than the political pain in not restricting it. The trying-to-restrict-immigration-is-bad lobby seem rather more powerful than the allowing-immigration-is-bad lobby.
I think this is right, but why has the balance changed from the second lobby to the first, which seems to be linked with Brexit? Is that because the economic damage of Brexit means the government feels compelled to use an immigration lever available to it? Or does the political failure of the Brexit project weaken the allowing-immigration-is-bad lobby?
Add I don't expect this policy to change under Labour.
A really simple solution to immigration. Link number of people allowed to immigrate to number of new homes built in any given year. No new homes, no more immigrants.
Fwiw, I am not bothered by 1m new immigrants in the slightest if enough homes and infrastructure (schools, hospitals etc) can be built to support them.
Immigration should be directly linked to capacity of housing and other key services, and this should be a quota enshrined in law.
So your solution is to make the labour market as flexible and responsive as planning departments? I might see a flaw in this idea.
The opposite. If immigration of 1m-ish a year is imperative to the economy as people seem to think it is, the archaic and outdated 1947 planning laws would have to be abolished and replaced with something that would allow the rapid development of UK housing capacity and related infrastructure.
"Royal fan detained for 13 hours after 'wrongful arrest' at King's coronation
Alice Chambers was an innocent bystander waiting to see the King drive past before being crowned at Westminster Abbey when she was arrested and locked up for the whole day."
I was assures yesterday this was a non-issue and the Met had behaved perfectly throughout.
Labour need to split up the Met.
Why are you blaming the police and not the protestors for things like this happening? The question to you is, if I placed you in overall charge for managing the security of the Coronation, what would have been different?
I was there, and I told the protestors there what they could and couldn’t do - no noises to alarm the horses, no going beyond the barricades, and if someone’s come all from Australia to enjoy the vibe and ultimate history making pageantry (that was indeed awesome) would it be fair to stick their placards up so they can’t see it and chant over the bands and bagpipes?
I told the protestors they shouldn’t be there. They were exorcising their rights to protest without any thought to the responsibilities which come with the right to protest, that is injury to others. You just can’t have any protest a protest group thinks up, protest just can’t be anything goes. The right to protest comes with responsibility on protestors too.
You really are a loon
My protest is to glue myself to Farooq, he won’t have have a problem with it, because he believes the right to protest is alright to do absolute anything you want, that’s the protesters right. Rights come without any duty to be responsible when using them.
What are we having for dinner?
No protesters have the right to protest peacefully. When they cross that line that is when the police should get involved.
What they shouldn't be doing is arresting people before the protesting begins (which they did last weekend).
Anti monarchy and stop oil weren’t the only part of the security risk though. Terrorism. Bombs. Assassination. There’s far worse failings we could be blaming the security operation for failing today.
And how terrorists, and also those with intent “to cross that line” as you put it would blend in with the other protesters, use them as cover exploiting peaceful protests - which is another reason why the protestors shouldn’t have turned up in my honest opinion, an understanding and concern in how their protest could have been exploited.
If you wanted to blow up the London Marathon, you would dress as a Wookie for sure.
Can't attack the coronation if there isn't a coronation. Can't attack the marathon if there isn't a marathon. How much freedom do you really want to sacrifice on the altar of safety?
You have hit the nail on the head Farooq. I agree with you. Anyone Republican (what a sinister word) agnostic to monarchy , or just disliking Charles, such as about 98% of PB it seems, are BIGGING UP what went wrong in the policing operation for their own cause.
I’m standing my ground. I’m going to get a bigger tube of gorilla glue if I need to.
To my mind it’s a no brainer right to protest comes with responsibility - and sense of cause protection too - how peaceful protests get hijacked by those with intent to cross the line, your disciplined and responsible protest on a fair point is fantastic cover for those with more extreme intent, it will undermine the peaceful protest group and their cause - cost it support.
If I was setting up or leading a protest, I would be aware of this responsibility and feel the pressure of it.
"Royal fan detained for 13 hours after 'wrongful arrest' at King's coronation
Alice Chambers was an innocent bystander waiting to see the King drive past before being crowned at Westminster Abbey when she was arrested and locked up for the whole day."
I was assures yesterday this was a non-issue and the Met had behaved perfectly throughout.
Labour need to split up the Met.
Why are you blaming the police and not the protestors for things like this happening? The question to you is, if I placed you in overall charge for managing the security of the Coronation, what would have been different?
I was there, and I told the protestors there what they could and couldn’t do - no noises to alarm the horses, no going beyond the barricades, and if someone’s come all from Australia to enjoy the vibe and ultimate history making pageantry (that was indeed awesome) would it be fair to stick their placards up so they can’t see it and chant over the bands and bagpipes?
I told the protestors they shouldn’t be there. They were exorcising their rights to protest without any thought to the responsibilities which come with the right to protest, that is injury to others. You just can’t have any protest a protest group thinks up, protest just can’t be anything goes. The right to protest comes with responsibility on protestors too.
You really are a loon
I think that was intended ironically, FWIW. At least I hope it was.
Apologies Farooq. If I can only glue myself to one person who doesn’t appreciate rights come with some responsibility, I choose Nigel.
What will we be watching tonight? South Korean? I’ll bring some tteobokki. I do have the hots for the China girl from Aespa.
That must be wrong, along with other recent polls. We were assured in April that the Lab-Con gap was narrowing and that it wouldn't be long before Labour's lead was down to single figures.
Outlier after outlier.
I am watching BBC World News in the hotel lobby and Jeremy Hunt is on saying how the economy is rockin'. Talking Heads "Psycho Killer" playing in the background.
Talking Heads "Road to Nowhere" or "Burning Down The House" would be equally apposite.
"Royal fan detained for 13 hours after 'wrongful arrest' at King's coronation
Alice Chambers was an innocent bystander waiting to see the King drive past before being crowned at Westminster Abbey when she was arrested and locked up for the whole day."
I was assures yesterday this was a non-issue and the Met had behaved perfectly throughout.
Labour need to split up the Met.
Why are you blaming the police and not the protestors for things like this happening? The question to you is, if I placed you in overall charge for managing the security of the Coronation, what would have been different?
I was there, and I told the protestors there what they could and couldn’t do - no noises to alarm the horses, no going beyond the barricades, and if someone’s come all from Australia to enjoy the vibe and ultimate history making pageantry (that was indeed awesome) would it be fair to stick their placards up so they can’t see it and chant over the bands and bagpipes?
I told the protestors they shouldn’t be there. They were exorcising their rights to protest without any thought to the responsibilities which come with the right to protest, that is injury to others. You just can’t have any protest a protest group thinks up, protest just can’t be anything goes. The right to protest comes with responsibility on protestors too.
You really are a loon
My protest is to glue myself to Farooq, he won’t have have a problem with it, because he believes the right to protest is alright to do absolute anything you want, that’s the protesters right. Rights come without any duty to be responsible when using them.
What are we having for dinner?
Reheated Coronation quiche, obvs.
I’ll bring that with me.
BTW I noticed this the other day as an alternative - rather surprised it is claimed not to exist, becausae my mother used to make bacon and egg pie (nothing else in the filling) with thin shortcrust pastry: no use for herbivores obvs. Though we had it for high tea, not breakfast,
Ha, yes, I saw that. Breakfast pie is the stuff of dreams. Your mother's recipe sounds splendid, but I was thinking more of bacon, egg, sausage, beans, mushrooms and whatever regional additions you might want (black/white pudding? haggis? bubble and squeak? fried potatoes or hash browns?) - all in a shortcrust pastry pie. Possibly then the pie itself could be fried.
The telegraph is speculating that net migration for the past year, to be announced in May 25, will be around ONE MILLION
Stupefyingly huge
How accurate are the Telegraph, though, when they speculate about things?
Oddly it's the Tele and their ilk who now seem keenest to rub the Right's nose in diversity. I wonder why?
They seem to like to foster fears of the country 'getting swamped'. It can't be good for the mindset of their loyal readers hearing this sort of thing day in day out.
Despite ‘Brexit not being about immigration’ I guess Brexit betrayed is the long term strategy.
That's a theme. Eg we see the same with the 'bonfire of EU regs' (not). Brexit comes up against Reality, takes a beating, limps back to its corner, leaving its fans with a choice between "Oh no, our man's shit, he's a loser!" and "boo hiss, the fix is in, he's been nobbled!" - and all the true fans will go for the latter.
They are doing away with the Working Time Directive which was harmonised during the Major Government. I remembered this because I was tasked with lobbying my MP, Gwilym Jones by my company to reject the regulation. Gwilym was ejected in GE1997.
That one has long been in the sights, hasn't it. I don't know why anyone other than the obvious would support the right to make people work very long hours.
Anyone who wants to work over 48 hours a week can sign a disclaimer. That is what we were lobbying for back in 1996.
But now the employer will be able to dismiss those who refuse to work over 48 hours under certain circumstances. This government really are a load of b*******!
Wage increases for the unskilled. Sir Stuart Rose was right.
Millions of British people, for whom previously the minimum wage was the maximum wage, now find themselves earning £12-£14 an hour, as employers fight to fill vacancies.
Also a change in the balance of the relationship between employer and employee, now that there’s no longer an unlimited supply of minimum-wage labour available.
Things that should attract widespread support from those on the political left, but for some reason don’t.
That's only a first step.
Step 2. British industry needs to invest more. Step 3. Non-adversarial industrial relations. Step 4. Less risk-averse institutional investment.
These are all doable, we could do them, other countries do them, and if we want to fix things we have to get away from a low-skill, low-investment, labour intensive approach to business.
If we did these things, and reaped the rewards, we could afford to build the homes and infrastructure needed so that we could support our quite rapidly growing population.
I think the chance of this happening under any likely future government is below 10%.
"Royal fan detained for 13 hours after 'wrongful arrest' at King's coronation
Alice Chambers was an innocent bystander waiting to see the King drive past before being crowned at Westminster Abbey when she was arrested and locked up for the whole day."
I was assures yesterday this was a non-issue and the Met had behaved perfectly throughout.
Labour need to split up the Met.
Why are you blaming the police and not the protestors for things like this happening? The question to you is, if I placed you in overall charge for managing the security of the Coronation, what would have been different?
I was there, and I told the protestors there what they could and couldn’t do - no noises to alarm the horses, no going beyond the barricades, and if someone’s come all from Australia to enjoy the vibe and ultimate history making pageantry (that was indeed awesome) would it be fair to stick their placards up so they can’t see it and chant over the bands and bagpipes?
I told the protestors they shouldn’t be there. They were exorcising their rights to protest without any thought to the responsibilities which come with the right to protest, that is injury to others. You just can’t have any protest a protest group thinks up, protest just can’t be anything goes. The right to protest comes with responsibility on protestors too.
You really are a loon
I think that was intended ironically, FWIW. At least I hope it was.
Apologies Farooq. If I can only glue myself to one person who doesn’t appreciate rights come with some responsibility, I choose Nigel.
What will we be watching tonight? South Korean? I’ll bring some tteobokki. I do have the hots for the China girl from Aespa.
So net migration of 700,000. That’s three Milton Keyneses.
How many housing units were completed last year?
Totally unsustainable. This will lead to a populist backlash eventually.
I assume the government chooses more immigration because it thinks it necessary. Noteworthy the big increase started after Brexit. Did Brexit make immigration more necessary?
I assume the government chooses more immigration because the political pain in restricting immigration is greater than the political pain in not restricting it. The trying-to-restrict-immigration-is-bad lobby seem rather more powerful than the allowing-immigration-is-bad lobby.
I think this is right, but why has the balance changed from the second lobby to the first, which seems to be linked with Brexit? Is that because the economic damage of Brexit means the government feels compelled to use an immigration lever available to it? Or does the political failure of the Brexit project weaken the allowing-immigration-is-bad lobby?
Add I don't expect this policy to change under Labour.
A really simple solution to immigration. Link number of people allowed to immigrate to number of new homes built in any given year. No new homes, no more immigrants.
Fwiw, I am not bothered by 1m new immigrants in the slightest if enough homes and infrastructure (schools, hospitals etc) can be built to support them.
Immigration should be directly linked to capacity of housing and other key services, and this should be a quota enshrined in law.
So your solution is to make the labour market as flexible and responsive as planning departments? I might see a flaw in this idea.
The opposite. If immigration of 1m-ish a year is imperative to the economy as people seem to think it is, the archaic and outdated 1947 planning laws would have to be abolished and replaced with something that would allow the rapid development of UK housing capacity and related infrastructure.
Or, if planning laws are as important as everyone thinks, the immigration of 1m-ish a year will have to be abolished. One of the other. But not both.
I would just ask. Can anyone name a tangible Brexit benefit as of right now for anyone under the age of 45? Thanks.
Increased wages for lower skilled workers. Granted the benefit of that has now been eroded by inflation. But inflation has happened everywhere.
Harder to say what the benefit has been for the graduate class, not least because far fewer restrictions were placed on the arrival of the knowledge class.
All quite difficult to say for sure because we will never have a counterfactual, and so much has happened in the last seven years that it is hard to unpick the impacts of one thing from another.
Have the wages for lower skilled workers notably increased? The fact that we now have record levels of immigration - the government must want them here for some purpose - kind of suggests not.
Well they did, very quickly after Brexit. But then, covid/Ukraine-triggered inflation, and everyone got poorer. I think you over-credit the government with planning immigration in response to demand or otherwise. My take is that government is incapable of restricting immigration in a way which it is willing to take the political hit for doing so. It is just reacting (or not) to events. Ukrainians and HK Chinese are special cases, of course.
But doesn't your second point beg the answer to your first? If restricted immigration is a good, why did the government increase it, specifically after Brexit? Bearing in mind it has an interest in Brexit being a success?
My view FWIW is that while some classes.of workers did see increased real wages for a while, ultimately wages are what is afforded by the economy. If you burden the economy you limit what can be afforded.
That must be wrong, along with other recent polls. We were assured in April that the Lab-Con gap was narrowing and that it wouldn't be long before Labour's lead was down to single figures.
Outlier after outlier.
I am watching BBC World News in the hotel lobby and Jeremy Hunt is on saying how the economy is rockin'. Talking Heads "Psycho Killer" playing in the background.
I would just ask. Can anyone name a tangible Brexit benefit as of right now for anyone under the age of 45? Thanks.
Increased wages for lower skilled workers. Granted the benefit of that has now been eroded by inflation. But inflation has happened everywhere.
Harder to say what the benefit has been for the graduate class, not least because far fewer restrictions were placed on the arrival of the knowledge class.
All quite difficult to say for sure because we will never have a counterfactual, and so much has happened in the last seven years that it is hard to unpick the impacts of one thing from another.
Have the wages for lower skilled workers notably increased? The fact that we now have record levels of immigration - the government must want them here for some purpose - kind of suggests not.
Well they did, very quickly after Brexit. But then, covid/Ukraine-triggered inflation, and everyone got poorer. I think you over-credit the government with planning immigration in response to demand or otherwise. My take is that government is incapable of restricting immigration in a way which it is willing to take the political hit for doing so. It is just reacting (or not) to events. Ukrainians and HK Chinese are special cases, of course.
But doesn't your second point beg the answer to your first? If restricted immigration is a good, why did the government increase it, specifically after Brexit? Bearing in mind it has an interest in Brexit being a success?
My view FWIW is that while some classes.of workers did see increased real wages for a while, ultimately wages are what is afforded by the economy. If you burden the economy you limit what can be afforded.
Ukraine and Hong Kong are both anomalies in this year’s numbers. Also with student numbers, which have risen after pandemic-related deferrals.
Russian MOD confirms that Russian troops redeployed to “more advantageous defensive positions” along the Berkhivka reservoir north of Bakhmut — or, in plain English, retreated by several km. https://twitter.com/yarotrof/status/1656970691227549696
That must be wrong, along with other recent polls. We were assured in April that the Lab-Con gap was narrowing and that it wouldn't be long before Labour's lead was down to single figures.
Outlier after outlier.
I am watching BBC World News in the hotel lobby and Jeremy Hunt is on saying how the economy is rockin'. Talking Heads "Psycho Killer" playing in the background.
Talking Heads "Road to Nowhere" or "Burning Down The House" would be equally apposite.
Qu’est-ce que c’est?
It was just randomly playing, but your suggestions would be even more appropriate.
When will net migration be in the tens of thousands ?
Isn’t Kemi on the case , the alleged saviour of the Tory party !
Yes, but can she hold a jewelled sword while dressed like a character from Star Trek? We are informed that that is the key thing to look for in a leader.
I would just ask. Can anyone name a tangible Brexit benefit as of right now for anyone under the age of 45? Thanks.
Increased wages for lower skilled workers. Granted the benefit of that has now been eroded by inflation. But inflation has happened everywhere.
Harder to say what the benefit has been for the graduate class, not least because far fewer restrictions were placed on the arrival of the knowledge class.
All quite difficult to say for sure because we will never have a counterfactual, and so much has happened in the last seven years that it is hard to unpick the impacts of one thing from another.
Have the wages for lower skilled workers notably increased? The fact that we now have record levels of immigration - the government must want them here for some purpose - kind of suggests not.
Well they did, very quickly after Brexit. But then, covid/Ukraine-triggered inflation, and everyone got poorer. I think you over-credit the government with planning immigration in response to demand or otherwise. My take is that government is incapable of restricting immigration in a way which it is willing to take the political hit for doing so. It is just reacting (or not) to events. Ukrainians and HK Chinese are special cases, of course.
But doesn't your second point beg the answer to your first? If restricted immigration is a good, why did the government increase it, specifically after Brexit? Bearing in mind it has an interest in Brexit being a success?
My view FWIW is that while some classes.of workers did see increased real wages for a while, ultimately wages are what is afforded by the economy. If you burden the economy you limit what can be afforded.
Ukraine and Hong Kong are both anomalies in this year’s numbers. Also with student numbers, which have risen after pandemic-related deferrals.
Ukraine and Hong Kong are one-offs accounting for I think 150 000 of last year's figures. Student numbers were higher last year but lower the year before. EU citizens are still returning home after Brexit reducing net migration. I think both those trends will work themselves out. The baseline immigration s definitely much higher.
Sandpit constantly claims that Brexit delivered a wage rise for the lower paid, and then cites Stuart Rose’s gaffe during the campaign as a killer quote.
He does this about once a week and usually gets a handful of “likes”.
There’s bugger all evidence of any wage rise, save for spikes in very specific jobs (truck drivers) where Brexit caused a sudden shock to labour supply.
Brexit related inflation (ie the knock on effect of increased distribution costs) pretty quickly dissipated any gains, and Brexit related productivity stagnation has permanently impaired everybody’s ability to command a higher wage.
And we’ve had even higher migration since, much of it quite low skilled.
So net migration of 700,000. That’s three Milton Keyneses.
How many housing units were completed last year?
Totally unsustainable. This will lead to a populist backlash eventually.
I assume the government chooses more immigration because it thinks it necessary. Noteworthy the big increase started after Brexit. Did Brexit make immigration more necessary?
I assume the government chooses more immigration because the political pain in restricting immigration is greater than the political pain in not restricting it. The trying-to-restrict-immigration-is-bad lobby seem rather more powerful than the allowing-immigration-is-bad lobby.
I think this is right, but why has the balance changed from the second lobby to the first, which seems to be linked with Brexit? Is that because the economic damage of Brexit means the government feels compelled to use an immigration lever available to it? Or does the political failure of the Brexit project weaken the allowing-immigration-is-bad lobby?
Add I don't expect this policy to change under Labour.
A really simple solution to immigration. Link number of people allowed to immigrate to number of new homes built in any given year. No new homes, no more immigrants.
Fwiw, I am not bothered by 1m new immigrants in the slightest if enough homes and infrastructure (schools, hospitals etc) can be built to support them.
Immigration should be directly linked to capacity of housing and other key services, and this should be a quota enshrined in law.
So your solution is to make the labour market as flexible and responsive as planning departments? I might see a flaw in this idea.
The opposite. If immigration of 1m-ish a year is imperative to the economy as people seem to think it is, the archaic and outdated 1947 planning laws would have to be abolished and replaced with something that would allow the rapid development of UK housing capacity and related infrastructure.
Hmm, as I mentioned the other day the next village down from me is currently having 450 houses built - it's population is given as 2,607 according to Google. So it is certainly possible as it's happening near me.
Back in 2021 there was a referendum passed in the parish
“Do you want Bassetlaw District Council to use the Neighbourhood Plan for Hodsock and Langold to help it decide planning applications in the neighbourhood area?” by 414 votes "Yes" to 81 "No"
The new housing currently being built is clearly shown on page 26 of the neighbourhood plan.
I would just ask. Can anyone name a tangible Brexit benefit as of right now for anyone under the age of 45? Thanks.
Increased wages for lower skilled workers. Granted the benefit of that has now been eroded by inflation. But inflation has happened everywhere.
Harder to say what the benefit has been for the graduate class, not least because far fewer restrictions were placed on the arrival of the knowledge class.
All quite difficult to say for sure because we will never have a counterfactual, and so much has happened in the last seven years that it is hard to unpick the impacts of one thing from another.
Have the wages for lower skilled workers notably increased? The fact that we now have record levels of immigration - the government must want them here for some purpose - kind of suggests not.
Well they did, very quickly after Brexit. But then, covid/Ukraine-triggered inflation, and everyone got poorer. I think you over-credit the government with planning immigration in response to demand or otherwise. My take is that government is incapable of restricting immigration in a way which it is willing to take the political hit for doing so. It is just reacting (or not) to events. Ukrainians and HK Chinese are special cases, of course.
But doesn't your second point beg the answer to your first? If restricted immigration is a good, why did the government increase it, specifically after Brexit? Bearing in mind it has an interest in Brexit being a success?
My view FWIW is that while some classes.of workers did see increased real wages for a while, ultimately wages are what is afforded by the economy. If you burden the economy you limit what can be afforded.
Ukraine and Hong Kong are both anomalies in this year’s numbers. Also with student numbers, which have risen after pandemic-related deferrals.
Family migration has also increased as people are finding loopholes around May's effective restrictions due to a low income threshhold. And worker immigration has rocketed due to a big expansion of the "shortage" list plus a low salary restriction on the non-shortage list.
Sandpit constantly claims that Brexit delivered a wage rise for the lower paid, and then cites Stuart Rose’s gaffe during the campaign as a killer quote.
He does this about once a week and usually gets a handful of “likes”.
There’s bugger all evidence of any wage rise, save for spikes in very specific jobs (truck drivers) where Brexit caused a sudden shock to labour supply.
Brexit related inflation (ie the knock on effect of increased distribution costs) pretty quickly dissipated any gains, and Brexit related productivity stagnation has permanently impaired everybody’s ability to command a higher wage.
And we’ve had even higher migration since, much of it quite low skilled.
The spikes have been in jobs where immigration has been shut off. The lower mid jobs have not seen the same increase because we opened immigration up, as you say. The best way to improve productivity long term is by bringing in high productivity people, not low productivity ones.
So net migration of 700,000. That’s three Milton Keyneses.
How many housing units were completed last year?
Totally unsustainable. This will lead to a populist backlash eventually.
I assume the government chooses more immigration because it thinks it necessary. Noteworthy the big increase started after Brexit. Did Brexit make immigration more necessary?
I assume the government chooses more immigration because the political pain in restricting immigration is greater than the political pain in not restricting it. The trying-to-restrict-immigration-is-bad lobby seem rather more powerful than the allowing-immigration-is-bad lobby.
I think this is right, but why has the balance changed from the second lobby to the first, which seems to be linked with Brexit? Is that because the economic damage of Brexit means the government feels compelled to use an immigration lever available to it? Or does the political failure of the Brexit project weaken the allowing-immigration-is-bad lobby?
Add I don't expect this policy to change under Labour.
A really simple solution to immigration. Link number of people allowed to immigrate to number of new homes built in any given year. No new homes, no more immigrants.
Fwiw, I am not bothered by 1m new immigrants in the slightest if enough homes and infrastructure (schools, hospitals etc) can be built to support them.
Immigration should be directly linked to capacity of housing and other key services, and this should be a quota enshrined in law.
So your solution is to make the labour market as flexible and responsive as planning departments? I might see a flaw in this idea.
The opposite. If immigration of 1m-ish a year is imperative to the economy as people seem to think it is, the archaic and outdated 1947 planning laws would have to be abolished and replaced with something that would allow the rapid development of UK housing capacity and related infrastructure.
For many years though the same system was delivering around 300k houses per year. If you scrap the laws and replace them with new laws then ultimately the same problems just reappear; you have to decide where the housing is going to go, and people always have opinions about this that they are entitled to express in a democracy.
Also, why are 300k houses being consented and only half that number actually built?
The other issue is that there are areas of the UK with a massive surplus of housing - particularly the north, lots of areas where housing is very cheap. It isn't just a case of 'insufficient housing to accommodate migration'.
The problem is fundamentally about the absence of planning at a national level about how to accommodate growth, all it takes is for the government to decide they are going to do this, and it can happen through the existing laws.
Trying to scrap and rewrite the planning laws is just a distraction from more important issues and a waste of time. It is like redoing the plumbing when the problem is that there is no water supply at all.
I would just ask. Can anyone name a tangible Brexit benefit as of right now for anyone under the age of 45? Thanks.
Increased wages for lower skilled workers. Granted the benefit of that has now been eroded by inflation. But inflation has happened everywhere.
Harder to say what the benefit has been for the graduate class, not least because far fewer restrictions were placed on the arrival of the knowledge class.
All quite difficult to say for sure because we will never have a counterfactual, and so much has happened in the last seven years that it is hard to unpick the impacts of one thing from another.
Have the wages for lower skilled workers notably increased? The fact that we now have record levels of immigration - the government must want them here for some purpose - kind of suggests not.
Well they did, very quickly after Brexit. But then, covid/Ukraine-triggered inflation, and everyone got poorer. I think you over-credit the government with planning immigration in response to demand or otherwise. My take is that government is incapable of restricting immigration in a way which it is willing to take the political hit for doing so. It is just reacting (or not) to events. Ukrainians and HK Chinese are special cases, of course.
But doesn't your second point beg the answer to your first? If restricted immigration is a good, why did the government increase it, specifically after Brexit? Bearing in mind it has an interest in Brexit being a success?
My view FWIW is that while some classes.of workers did see increased real wages for a while, ultimately wages are what is afforded by the economy. If you burden the economy you limit what can be afforded.
Ukraine and Hong Kong are both anomalies in this year’s numbers. Also with student numbers, which have risen after pandemic-related deferrals.
Family migration has also increased as people are finding loopholes around May's effective restrictions due to a low income threshhold. And worker immigration has rocketed due to a big expansion of the "shortage" list plus a low salary restriction on the non-shortage list.
What's wrong with family migration? Supporting families is a good thing.
When will net migration be in the tens of thousands ?
Isn’t Kemi on the case , the alleged saviour of the Tory party !
Yes, but can she hold a jewelled sword while dressed like a character from Star Trek? We are informed that that is the key thing to look for in a leader.
I thought the gold wheat motif on blue showed support for Ukraine tbh.
So net migration of 700,000. That’s three Milton Keyneses.
How many housing units were completed last year?
Totally unsustainable. This will lead to a populist backlash eventually.
I assume the government chooses more immigration because it thinks it necessary. Noteworthy the big increase started after Brexit. Did Brexit make immigration more necessary?
I assume the government chooses more immigration because the political pain in restricting immigration is greater than the political pain in not restricting it. The trying-to-restrict-immigration-is-bad lobby seem rather more powerful than the allowing-immigration-is-bad lobby.
I think this is right, but why has the balance changed from the second lobby to the first, which seems to be linked with Brexit? Is that because the economic damage of Brexit means the government feels compelled to use an immigration lever available to it? Or does the political failure of the Brexit project weaken the allowing-immigration-is-bad lobby?
Add I don't expect this policy to change under Labour.
A really simple solution to immigration. Link number of people allowed to immigrate to number of new homes built in any given year. No new homes, no more immigrants.
Fwiw, I am not bothered by 1m new immigrants in the slightest if enough homes and infrastructure (schools, hospitals etc) can be built to support them.
Immigration should be directly linked to capacity of housing and other key services, and this should be a quota enshrined in law.
So your solution is to make the labour market as flexible and responsive as planning departments? I might see a flaw in this idea.
The opposite. If immigration of 1m-ish a year is imperative to the economy as people seem to think it is, the archaic and outdated 1947 planning laws would have to be abolished and replaced with something that would allow the rapid development of UK housing capacity and related infrastructure.
Hmm, as I mentioned the other day the next village down from me is currently having 450 houses built - it's population is given as 2,607 according to Google. So it is certainly possible as it's happening near me.
Back in 2021 there was a referendum passed in the parish
“Do you want Bassetlaw District Council to use the Neighbourhood Plan for Hodsock and Langold to help it decide planning applications in the neighbourhood area?” by 414 votes "Yes" to 81 "No"
The new housing currently being built is clearly shown on page 26 of the neighbourhood plan.
This certainly seems contrary to @HYUFD anecdotes of stopping every bit of development to be re-elected as a councillor !
Has anyone else's relevant council for housing/planning followed this path ?
Yes, my local area plan also got a large majority, and was supported by our local councillors (LD) for a similar percentage expansion of new housing. People just wanted it to be properly located, road access etc.
Ha, yes, I saw that. Breakfast pie is the stuff of dreams. Your mother's recipe sounds splendid, but I was thinking more of bacon, egg, sausage, beans, mushrooms and whatever regional additions you might want (black/white pudding? haggis? bubble and squeak? fried potatoes or hash browns?) - all in a shortcrust pastry pie. Possibly then the pie itself could be fried.
When will net migration be in the tens of thousands ?
Isn’t Kemi on the case , the alleged saviour of the Tory party !
Yes, but can she hold a jewelled sword while dressed like a character from Star Trek? We are informed that that is the key thing to look for in a leader.
I thought the gold wheat motif on blue showed support for Ukraine tbh.
Ukranians definitely noticed the carpet. Not sure if the blue and gold was intended to be a show of support, but it definitely came across that way to them.
I would just ask. Can anyone name a tangible Brexit benefit as of right now for anyone under the age of 45? Thanks.
Wage increases for the unskilled. Sir Stuart Rose was right.
Millions of British people, for whom previously the minimum wage was the maximum wage, now find themselves earning £12-£14 an hour, as employers fight to fill vacancies.
Also a change in the balance of the relationship between employer and employee, now that there’s no longer an unlimited supply of minimum-wage labour available.
Things that should attract widespread support from those on the political left, but for some reason don’t.
All the low paid are Farage Voting Gammon Racist Scum. Who are too lazy to work. This means that suppressing their wages is Progressive.
I would just ask. Can anyone name a tangible Brexit benefit as of right now for anyone under the age of 45? Thanks.
Increased wages for lower skilled workers. Granted the benefit of that has now been eroded by inflation. But inflation has happened everywhere.
Harder to say what the benefit has been for the graduate class, not least because far fewer restrictions were placed on the arrival of the knowledge class.
All quite difficult to say for sure because we will never have a counterfactual, and so much has happened in the last seven years that it is hard to unpick the impacts of one thing from another.
Have the wages for lower skilled workers notably increased? The fact that we now have record levels of immigration - the government must want them here for some purpose - kind of suggests not.
Well they did, very quickly after Brexit. But then, covid/Ukraine-triggered inflation, and everyone got poorer. I think you over-credit the government with planning immigration in response to demand or otherwise. My take is that government is incapable of restricting immigration in a way which it is willing to take the political hit for doing so. It is just reacting (or not) to events. Ukrainians and HK Chinese are special cases, of course.
But doesn't your second point beg the answer to your first? If restricted immigration is a good, why did the government increase it, specifically after Brexit? Bearing in mind it has an interest in Brexit being a success?
My view FWIW is that while some classes.of workers did see increased real wages for a while, ultimately wages are what is afforded by the economy. If you burden the economy you limit what can be afforded.
Ukraine and Hong Kong are both anomalies in this year’s numbers. Also with student numbers, which have risen after pandemic-related deferrals.
Family migration has also increased as people are finding loopholes around May's effective restrictions due to a low income threshhold. And worker immigration has rocketed due to a big expansion of the "shortage" list plus a low salary restriction on the non-shortage list.
What's wrong with family migration? Supporting families is a good thing.
Not if the families in question are shipping over 18 year old arranged brides from the sub-continent. Or people that the taxpayer is going to have to subsidize for the next 50 years.
I would just ask. Can anyone name a tangible Brexit benefit as of right now for anyone under the age of 45? Thanks.
Increased wages for lower skilled workers. Granted the benefit of that has now been eroded by inflation. But inflation has happened everywhere.
Harder to say what the benefit has been for the graduate class, not least because far fewer restrictions were placed on the arrival of the knowledge class.
All quite difficult to say for sure because we will never have a counterfactual, and so much has happened in the last seven years that it is hard to unpick the impacts of one thing from another.
Have the wages for lower skilled workers notably increased? The fact that we now have record levels of immigration - the government must want them here for some purpose - kind of suggests not.
Well they did, very quickly after Brexit. But then, covid/Ukraine-triggered inflation, and everyone got poorer. I think you over-credit the government with planning immigration in response to demand or otherwise. My take is that government is incapable of restricting immigration in a way which it is willing to take the political hit for doing so. It is just reacting (or not) to events. Ukrainians and HK Chinese are special cases, of course.
But doesn't your second point beg the answer to your first? If restricted immigration is a good, why did the government increase it, specifically after Brexit? Bearing in mind it has an interest in Brexit being a success?
My view FWIW is that while some classes.of workers did see increased real wages for a while, ultimately wages are what is afforded by the economy. If you burden the economy you limit what can be afforded.
Ukraine and Hong Kong are both anomalies in this year’s numbers. Also with student numbers, which have risen after pandemic-related deferrals.
Family migration has also increased as people are finding loopholes around May's effective restrictions due to a low income threshhold. And worker immigration has rocketed due to a big expansion of the "shortage" list plus a low salary restriction on the non-shortage list.
What's wrong with family migration? Supporting families is a good thing.
Depends how far it's allowed to go - obviously you'd expect immediate family (Wives, husbands, kids) to be allowed but are adult siblings allowed as 'family' ? Cousins, nephews, uncles, aunts ? Allowed to British citizens only or those who have residence, or those with leave to remain ?
Sandpit constantly claims that Brexit delivered a wage rise for the lower paid, and then cites Stuart Rose’s gaffe during the campaign as a killer quote.
He does this about once a week and usually gets a handful of “likes”.
There’s bugger all evidence of any wage rise, save for spikes in very specific jobs (truck drivers) where Brexit caused a sudden shock to labour supply.
Brexit related inflation (ie the knock on effect of increased distribution costs) pretty quickly dissipated any gains, and Brexit related productivity stagnation has permanently impaired everybody’s ability to command a higher wage.
And we’ve had even higher migration since, much of it quite low skilled.
Have you talked to anyone who employees people? Wage rises and difficulty in getting people are two major topics for all the people I know, who are employing people in the lower end of the job market.
I would just ask. Can anyone name a tangible Brexit benefit as of right now for anyone under the age of 45? Thanks.
Increased wages for lower skilled workers. Granted the benefit of that has now been eroded by inflation. But inflation has happened everywhere.
Harder to say what the benefit has been for the graduate class, not least because far fewer restrictions were placed on the arrival of the knowledge class.
All quite difficult to say for sure because we will never have a counterfactual, and so much has happened in the last seven years that it is hard to unpick the impacts of one thing from another.
Have the wages for lower skilled workers notably increased? The fact that we now have record levels of immigration - the government must want them here for some purpose - kind of suggests not.
Well they did, very quickly after Brexit. But then, covid/Ukraine-triggered inflation, and everyone got poorer. I think you over-credit the government with planning immigration in response to demand or otherwise. My take is that government is incapable of restricting immigration in a way which it is willing to take the political hit for doing so. It is just reacting (or not) to events. Ukrainians and HK Chinese are special cases, of course.
But doesn't your second point beg the answer to your first? If restricted immigration is a good, why did the government increase it, specifically after Brexit? Bearing in mind it has an interest in Brexit being a success?
My view FWIW is that while some classes.of workers did see increased real wages for a while, ultimately wages are what is afforded by the economy. If you burden the economy you limit what can be afforded.
Ukraine and Hong Kong are both anomalies in this year’s numbers. Also with student numbers, which have risen after pandemic-related deferrals.
Family migration has also increased as people are finding loopholes around May's effective restrictions due to a low income threshhold. And worker immigration has rocketed due to a big expansion of the "shortage" list plus a low salary restriction on the non-shortage list.
What's wrong with family migration? Supporting families is a good thing.
Depends how far it's allowed to go - obviously you'd expect immediate family (Wives, husbands, kids) to be allowed but are adult siblings allowed as 'family' ? Cousins, nephews, uncles, aunts ? Allowed to British citizens only or those who have residence, or those with leave to remain ?
Yeah people shouldn't take the piss, but human beings are meant to live in families and it often feels like people don't think that should apply to immigrants. Especially supporters of the so called party of family vaules.
So net migration of 700,000. That’s three Milton Keyneses.
How many housing units were completed last year?
Totally unsustainable. This will lead to a populist backlash eventually.
I assume the government chooses more immigration because it thinks it necessary. Noteworthy the big increase started after Brexit. Did Brexit make immigration more necessary?
I assume the government chooses more immigration because the political pain in restricting immigration is greater than the political pain in not restricting it. The trying-to-restrict-immigration-is-bad lobby seem rather more powerful than the allowing-immigration-is-bad lobby.
I think this is right, but why has the balance changed from the second lobby to the first, which seems to be linked with Brexit? Is that because the economic damage of Brexit means the government feels compelled to use an immigration lever available to it? Or does the political failure of the Brexit project weaken the allowing-immigration-is-bad lobby?
Add I don't expect this policy to change under Labour.
A really simple solution to immigration. Link number of people allowed to immigrate to number of new homes built in any given year. No new homes, no more immigrants.
Fwiw, I am not bothered by 1m new immigrants in the slightest if enough homes and infrastructure (schools, hospitals etc) can be built to support them.
Immigration should be directly linked to capacity of housing and other key services, and this should be a quota enshrined in law.
So your solution is to make the labour market as flexible and responsive as planning departments? I might see a flaw in this idea.
The opposite. If immigration of 1m-ish a year is imperative to the economy as people seem to think it is, the archaic and outdated 1947 planning laws would have to be abolished and replaced with something that would allow the rapid development of UK housing capacity and related infrastructure.
For many years though the same system was delivering around 300k houses per year. If you scrap the laws and replace them with new laws then ultimately the same problems just reappear; you have to decide where the housing is going to go, and people always have opinions about this that they are entitled to express in a democracy.
Also, why are 300k houses being consented and only half that number actually built?
The other issue is that there are areas of the UK with a massive surplus of housing - particularly the north, lots of areas where housing is very cheap. It isn't just a case of 'insufficient housing to accommodate migration'.
The problem is fundamentally about the absence of planning at a national level about how to accommodate growth, all it takes is for the government to decide they are going to do this, and it can happen through the existing laws.
Trying to scrap and rewrite the planning laws is just a distraction from more important issues and a waste of time. It is like redoing the plumbing when the problem is that there is no water supply at all.
Absolutely not true.
Number of housing units granted planning permission was about 150k for most of the 00s, and has gradually risen to circa 300k per year, with only 200k-ish a year actually being built - large developers land banking to artificially inflate prices is still a problem.
It suggests we need to build somewhere closer to 700k homes a year just to catch up on the UK's structural deficit, never mind immigration. To do that, we'd probably need to take the local element out of planning and replace it with a more permissive, centralised system. As has been pointed out downthread, you can have high immigration and you can reform planning laws, or you can have low immigration and stick with the planning laws as they are. You can't have both.
Most recent government report (March 2023) says 204k properties were built last year.
In short, we don't build nearly enough houses, no matter what people's local anecdata might suggest.
Sandpit constantly claims that Brexit delivered a wage rise for the lower paid, and then cites Stuart Rose’s gaffe during the campaign as a killer quote.
He does this about once a week and usually gets a handful of “likes”.
There’s bugger all evidence of any wage rise, save for spikes in very specific jobs (truck drivers) where Brexit caused a sudden shock to labour supply.
Brexit related inflation (ie the knock on effect of increased distribution costs) pretty quickly dissipated any gains, and Brexit related productivity stagnation has permanently impaired everybody’s ability to command a higher wage.
And we’ve had even higher migration since, much of it quite low skilled.
Have you talked to anyone who employees people? Wage rises and difficulty in getting people are two major topics for all the people I know, who are employing people in the lower end of the job market.
Going for the easy likes? Tut!
Wage rises? Remind me what food inflation is currently running at?
Comments
What they shouldn't be doing is arresting people before the protesting begins (which they did last weekend).
What will we be watching tonight? South Korean? I’ll bring some tteobokki. I do have the hots for the China girl from Aespa.
The trying-to-restrict-immigration-is-bad lobby seem rather more powerful than the allowing-immigration-is-bad lobby.
And how terrorists, and also those with intent “to cross that line” as you put it would blend in with the other protesters, use them as cover exploiting peaceful protests - which is another reason why the protestors shouldn’t have turned up in my honest opinion, an understanding and concern in how their protest could have been exploited.
If you wanted to blow up the London Marathon, you would dress as a Wookie for sure.
Spicy. Worth a watch whatever side you sit on
Hah, well I am staying, and it's all down to you, Johnsonian Brexiteers!
Add I don't expect this policy to change under Labour.
Millions of British people, for whom previously the minimum wage was the maximum wage, now find themselves earning £12-£14 an hour, as employers fight to fill vacancies.
Also a change in the balance of the relationship between employer and employee, now that there’s no longer an unlimited supply of minimum-wage labour available.
Things that should attract widespread support from those on the political left, but for some reason don’t.
DuraAce: Yes, but this picture proves my point
Viewcode: facepalm
Granted the benefit of that has now been eroded by inflation. But inflation has happened everywhere.
Harder to say what the benefit has been for the graduate class, not least because far fewer restrictions were placed on the arrival of the knowledge class.
All quite difficult to say for sure because we will never have a counterfactual, and so much has happened in the last seven years that it is hard to unpick the impacts of one thing from another.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/may/08/breakfast-pie-the-british-delicacy-that-doesnt-exist-but-absolutely-should
LAB: 45% (+1)
CON: 28% (-1)
LDEM: 11% (-)
GRN: 5% (-)
REF: 5% (-1)
via @techneUK, 10 - 11 May
SKS fans please explain
Fwiw, I am not bothered by 1m new immigrants in the slightest if enough homes and infrastructure (schools, hospitals etc) can be built to support them.
Immigration should be directly linked to capacity of housing and other key services, and this should be a quota enshrined in law.
I am watching BBC World News in the hotel lobby and Jeremy Hunt is on saying how the economy is rockin'. Talking Heads "Psycho Killer" playing in the background.
I think you over-credit the government with planning immigration in response to demand or otherwise. My take is that government is incapable of restricting immigration in a way which it is willing to take the political hit for doing so. It is just reacting (or not) to events.
Ukrainians and HK Chinese are special cases, of course.
Housebuilding needs to continually outgrow the population, otherwise young people will find it impossible to buy houses.
If immigration is 3x Milton Keynes, then housebuilding needs to be at least 4x Milton Keynes, if not 5x.
I’m standing my ground. I’m going to get a bigger tube of gorilla glue if I need to.
To my mind it’s a no brainer right to protest comes with responsibility - and sense of cause protection too - how peaceful protests get hijacked by those with intent to cross the line, your disciplined and responsible protest on a fair point is fantastic cover for those with more extreme intent, it will undermine the peaceful protest group and their cause - cost it support.
If I was setting up or leading a protest, I would be aware of this responsibility and feel the pressure of it.
Isn’t Kemi on the case , the alleged saviour of the Tory party !
*drifts off into happy reverie*
But now the employer will be able to dismiss those who refuse to work over 48 hours under certain circumstances. This government really are a load of b*******!
Step 2. British industry needs to invest more.
Step 3. Non-adversarial industrial relations.
Step 4. Less risk-averse institutional investment.
These are all doable, we could do them, other countries do them, and if we want to fix things we have to get away from a low-skill, low-investment, labour intensive approach to business.
If we did these things, and reaped the rewards, we could afford to build the homes and infrastructure needed so that we could support our quite rapidly growing population.
I think the chance of this happening under any likely future government is below 10%.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OU94ZF2Iqwk - nsfw
One of the other. But not both.
My view FWIW is that while some classes.of workers did see increased real wages for a while, ultimately wages are what is afforded by the economy. If you burden the economy you limit what can be afforded.
https://twitter.com/implausibleblog/status/1656756826111614976
Why do the Tories let Helen Whately out? She is worth votes to Labour every time she opens her mouth.
Time to bring these failing company bosses to justice. Put them in jail.
Russian MOD confirms that Russian troops redeployed to “more advantageous defensive positions” along the Berkhivka reservoir north of Bakhmut — or, in plain English, retreated by several km.
https://twitter.com/yarotrof/status/1656970691227549696
It was just randomly playing, but your suggestions would be even more appropriate.
He does this about once a week and usually gets a handful of “likes”.
There’s bugger all evidence of any wage rise, save for spikes in very specific jobs (truck drivers) where Brexit caused a sudden shock to labour supply.
Brexit related inflation (ie the knock on effect of increased distribution costs) pretty quickly dissipated any gains, and Brexit related productivity stagnation has permanently impaired everybody’s ability to command a higher wage.
And we’ve had even higher migration since, much of it quite low skilled.
Back in 2021 there was a referendum passed in the parish
“Do you want Bassetlaw District Council to use the Neighbourhood Plan for Hodsock and Langold to help it decide planning applications in the neighbourhood area?” by 414 votes "Yes" to 81 "No"
The new housing currently being built is clearly shown on page 26 of the neighbourhood plan.
https://www.bassetlaw.gov.uk/media/6191/hodsock-02-neighbourhood-plan-referendum-version.pdf
So there's implied community consent for the development of what is quite a major expansion to the village.
All plans put to the relevant voters passed with similar heavy margins
https://www.bassetlaw.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/elections-in-bassetlaw/other-elections-information/past-election-results/election-results-2021/neighbourhood-plan-referendum-results-2021/
This certainly seems contrary to @HYUFD anecdotes of stopping every bit of development to be re-elected as a councillor !
Has anyone else's relevant council for housing/planning followed this path ?
Indeed, it included me, as I was away 18 months in Australasia.
Also, why are 300k houses being consented and only half that number actually built?
The other issue is that there are areas of the UK with a massive surplus of housing - particularly the north, lots of areas where housing is very cheap. It isn't just a case of 'insufficient housing to accommodate migration'.
The problem is fundamentally about the absence of planning at a national level about how to accommodate growth, all it takes is for the government to decide they are going to do this, and it can happen through the existing laws.
Trying to scrap and rewrite the planning laws is just a distraction from more important issues and a waste of time. It is like redoing the plumbing when the problem is that there is no water supply at all.
Immigration is something which the Tories have unwisely shackled themselves to.
Cousins, nephews, uncles, aunts ?
Allowed to British citizens only or those who have residence, or those with leave to remain ?
Number of housing units granted planning permission was about 150k for most of the 00s, and has gradually risen to circa 300k per year, with only 200k-ish a year actually being built - large developers land banking to artificially inflate prices is still a problem.
This is a good read https://www.centreforcities.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/The-housebuilding-crisis-February-2023.pdf
It suggests we need to build somewhere closer to 700k homes a year just to catch up on the UK's structural deficit, never mind immigration. To do that, we'd probably need to take the local element out of planning and replace it with a more permissive, centralised system. As has been pointed out downthread, you can have high immigration and you can reform planning laws, or you can have low immigration and stick with the planning laws as they are. You can't have both.
Most recent government report (March 2023) says 204k properties were built last year.
In short, we don't build nearly enough houses, no matter what people's local anecdata might suggest.
Wage rises? Remind me what food inflation is currently running at?