I spoke to a woman yesterday who is at her wits end: Her husband works full-time in a low-pay job, she has been does not work but looks after their four children, all under 10.
They privately rent a 3-bed house and have just been told by the letting agent that their rent is going up by 41% (!) in March. Reason? - BTL "owner's mortgage has gone up". There's nothing else locally they can move to for any less rent (there are hardly any 3-bed homes for rent locally). They are on the council housing register but would need to become actually homeless to stand any chance of getting anything, then it could be B&B for a long-stretch.
They receive UC support which was covering their rent but that's capped by the Local Housing Allowance at about 75% of their new rent. They were already struggling on the old rent and regularly borrowing from family mid-month, paying back when they got paid... and repeat. Rent, Council Tax, Electricity, Gas, Food, Transport - this is where all their money goes.
What kind of messed-up country have we become where:
1) Taxpayers have to subsidise a traditional working family to live? 2) Those subsidies are set based on 'local rent levels' which are way below any actual comparable local rents?
We are seeing this every week now: working families, both tenants and mortgaged homeowners, who have hit the point where they just cannot make sums add up.
Anyone who thinks we're about to hit a feel-good period is a bit deluded imo.
We need a huge increase in housebuilding and a big hike in the minimum wage - why the f*ck are taxpayers subsidising low-pay employers and BTL landlords?
Ultimately, no social model will turn one low salary into a comfortable standard of living for six humans.
That's kinda what I was thinking. Basically is someone on minimum wage with a non working wife really expecting to have enough money for 4 kids? What they are unhappy about is that we are not subsidising them sufficiently to give them the standard of living they think they are entitled to. Well, actually, they aren't.
"the standard of living they think they are entitled to" = "housed, warm and fed", in this case.
Maybe you're right though. Why did they have four children, how selfish of them. And yet, don't we have a demographic crisis? Don't we need more children?
The couple I week or two ago, contemplating selling house and trying to rent because they can't afford the mortgage now - both working, both on minimum wage - they only had two children.
That's the problem with meritocracy. People deserve a decent life even if the system decides them to have little merit.
Define 'decent'.
How much should people be protected from their own decisions? If I go out and waste money; become penniless through drink, drugs or gambling, do I personally deserve the same lifestyle as someone who has been careful and made better decisions? Sure, the welfare system should ensure I can *live*, but the same lifestyle?
On the other hand, a friend of mine was the first in her family to go to uni, yet soon afterwards was struck down by a life-limiting illness. She made no decisions that contributed to her illness. Does she deserve the same lifestyle as someone who continuously makes bad decisions?
If you say 'yes' to both of these, then I reckon the general public would disagree.
And this opens a hornet's nest...
I would suggest that a rented 3 bedroom property between 6 is not unreasonable.
When only one of them works? People's poor decisions should not be rewarded. I ensured I was earning more than 40k (in today's money) and had my own home before we had our first.
FFS just listen to yourself.
Next time I see the woman I'll suggest she gets her husband to earn £40k+. I doubt they had considered that idea.
(Btw In this instance the woman is not currently able to work; she had been medically assessed as such by the DWP and is receiving treatment.)
So why did they have four kids? How many kids did they already have when they started having other people subsidize their lives?
Perhaps they had 4 kids before their circumstances changed. There but for the grace of God go any of us.
You can be pretty sure if that was the case, the journalist would have mentioned that in the sob story.
What journalist?
I mean... I written a couple of thread headers, does that qualify me?
Even in a deep crisis- with voters turning away from them- it’s the Conservative party and the media that remain mighty while a Labour leadership- miles ahead in polls- ‘caves in’ again:
Why, oh why, do Labour do this? If they're going to drop it, do it quietly. Terrible message management.
Labour (and for that matter the Tories too) know how skint the Treasury is and how run down public services are. Councils, Schools, Universities, NHS, Home Office, Criminal Justice system, Armed Forces, etc are all knackered.
Whoever wins the election knows that they will have to sort it out. The Tories talk about tax cuts because they know they won't have to deal with the consequences. Starmer and Reeves don't want to promise spending that they cannot deliver.
Labour need to make the case for public *investment*. Every reputable economist on earth knows that British lack of capital investment is a major impediment to growth.
This particular policy was popular with Labour voters. It’s not obvious - apart from cowardice - why Labour have junked it.
Yes but as I pointed out there are many other areas crying out for public sector investment.
This year we will see Councils, Universities, Social Care, etc etc at risk of collapse.
Starmer and Reeves are right not to make hostages to fortune, and I am definitely in favour of Green policies.
Universities are money pits for no users to fill their pockets and need sorting out , councils , social care etc are full of people that don't do what it says on the tin, either all woke / diversity crap and little on the services supposed to be their remit and full of grifters at the top. Public services are full of useless grifters.
This is why politicians should never insult 25% of voters. You end up with horrible situations like this.
Its perfectly fine to insult 25% of voters, if you can appeal to 75%.
Trump is offensive to more than 25% of voters too.
It is not “perfectly fine” to insult anyone, let alone 25% of voters
There is a difference between “could” and “should” which you fail to understand
Calling half of the electorate Deplorables didn’t end well for Mrs Clinton.
You have a go at your opponent, you don’t, ever, have a go at the people who might vote for them.
No, failing to campaign properly and flying over the "flyover states" to spend most of her time on the coasts which weren't even in play didn't work well for Clinton.
Trump has insulted far more voters, far more regularly, than Clinton ever did. In rather deranged BLOCK CAPS RANTS about LIBERALS and others most of the time.
He regularly insults quite a few of those who say they'll vote for him, if they are insufficiently subservient. 'Little Marco'; 'Birdbrain' etc.
The latest BBC push notification is disastrous for the government:
"The suspect in an alkali attack in south London was convicted of a sex offence in 2018 and was later granted asylum"
Starmer could make a major move here: announce a Labour government will split the Home Office, taking away any role with border security, asylum processing, deportations etc etc and putting all that in a new Cabinet-level department.
Not fit for purpose.
There’s probably a ton of case law that requires us to grant asylum to serious criminals.
Like so many, he “converted to Christianity.” Pretending to be a Christian is even more popular than pretending to be gay, among those who game the system.
This is why politicians should never insult 25% of voters. You end up with horrible situations like this.
Its perfectly fine to insult 25% of voters, if you can appeal to 75%.
Trump is offensive to more than 25% of voters too.
It is not “perfectly fine” to insult anyone, let alone 25% of voters
There is a difference between “could” and “should” which you fail to understand
Calling half of the electorate Deplorables didn’t end well for Mrs Clinton.
You have a go at your opponent, you don’t, ever, have a go at the people who might vote for them.
No, failing to campaign properly and flying over the "flyover states" to spend most of her time on the coasts which weren't even in play didn't work well for Clinton.
Trump has insulted far more voters, far more regularly, than Clinton ever did. In rather deranged BLOCK CAPS RANTS about LIBERALS and others most of the time.
He regularly insults quite a few of those who say they'll vote for him, if they are insufficiently subservient. 'Little Marco'; 'Birdbrain' etc.
It's part of Trump's brand - it annoys some voters, and it works for others. "He tells it like it is" "he stands up to the elite" bla bla bla. Clinton saying half of Trump's supporters are a basket of deplorables supports the branding of her as part of the elite, someone who looks down her nose at ordinary people, and I can't see any positive side to it for her.
The latest BBC push notification is disastrous for the government:
"The suspect in an alkali attack in south London was convicted of a sex offence in 2018 and was later granted asylum"
That’s appalling. How on earth can you be granted asylum if you’ve been convicted of an offence.
Where in the law does it say the right to asylum doesn't apply to criminals?
The arsehole should have been on the next flight out. We have enough of our own criminals without importing more. Any immigrant/ supposed asylum seeker committing crimes shoudl be deported immediately. It is wishy washy liberal cry babies like you that have allowed the country to go down the drain.
It is time to simply end the asylum system. It is not fit for purpose, it is not fit for a globalised world, rich countries everywhere have the same issue (especially the USA). There will be a consensus, IF we are bold enough to seek it
Demolish the asylum-industrial complex, with its parasitic lawyers and bleating liberals. Introduce a new category of "sanctuary seekers" or whatever, and make it much much tougher to qualify. No appeals, no 2nd or 3rd goes
This fucking demonic Afghan pervert failed twice, and kept changing his story, and eventually got in by pretending to be a Christian priest, FFS, who actually believes that? No one believes that. Now a woman and her child are mutilated for life, their faces melted
Scrap asylum; start towing back the boats to France; before we actually elect Hitler. Get the fuck on with it
My hard work out here in the east is making me money. I have sums to invest
But where? My sense is that the AI/tech boom has a long way to go yet, and that it’s hard to go wrong with the Magnificent Seven - Google, Amazon, Nvidia, MS, etc
Even if there’s a war the tech companies will be crucial, if Trump wins I can’t see that harming US tech either. I know these shares have already risen a lot but I see them rising further for quite a while
Am i wrong?
I would not be putting all my money on such a small subset unless you don't care if you might lose a wedge. Far better to go for a Global Index which will include them anyway but have many more to lower the risk.
FWIW the aggregate value of the FAANGS is greater than the entire UK stock market
A key part of Rishi Sunak’s effort to stop the boats has collapsed after Home Office officials declared that Turkey was not a safe country to send migrants back to because of human rights concerns.
Ministers hoped to set up a migrant returns deal with Ankara after a surge in the number of Turkish people arriving illegally in Britain by small boat.
Three thousand Turkish nationals arrived that way last year, making them the third largest nationality to do so and representing a 162 per cent increase from the year before.
The deal would have mirrored an accord with Albania which has significantly cut the number of its citizens entering the UK in this way.
An internal Home Office review described Turkey as “a state that does not meet the criteria of being ‘generally safe’”.
It said that previous analysis of Turkish cases and anecdotal evidence had found 99 per cent of Turkish asylum cases in the UK were based on a fear of the state.
The majority were “political” opponents of the regime due to their actual or perceived involvement in opposition movements, including the Peoples’ Democratic Party, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party and the Gulen movement.
The assessment criticised Turkey’s “over-zealous” application of anti-terrorism laws and raised concerns over the independence of the judiciary and the provision of fair trials, particularly in “political” cases.
There are allegations of torture and ill-treatment in police custody and prison.
Notably, the assessment also raises concerns over Turkey’s compliance with adverse rulings from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which the Home Office assessment said “raised questions about adherence to the rule of law”.
This is significant given Sunak’s plans not to comply with interim injunctions from the same court.
His Rwanda bill will give ministers the power to ignore these so-called Rule 39 orders despite the president of the ECHR saying last month that this would be a breach of international law.
This is why politicians should never insult 25% of voters. You end up with horrible situations like this.
Its perfectly fine to insult 25% of voters, if you can appeal to 75%.
Trump is offensive to more than 25% of voters too.
It is not “perfectly fine” to insult anyone, let alone 25% of voters
There is a difference between “could” and “should” which you fail to understand
Calling half of the electorate Deplorables didn’t end well for Mrs Clinton.
You have a go at your opponent, you don’t, ever, have a go at the people who might vote for them.
No, failing to campaign properly and flying over the "flyover states" to spend most of her time on the coasts which weren't even in play didn't work well for Clinton.
Trump has insulted far more voters, far more regularly, than Clinton ever did. In rather deranged BLOCK CAPS RANTS about LIBERALS and others most of the time.
He regularly insults quite a few of those who say they'll vote for him, if they are insufficiently subservient. 'Little Marco'; 'Birdbrain' etc.
It's part of Trump's brand - it annoys some voters, and it works for others. "He tells it like it is" "he stands up to the elite" bla bla bla. Clinton saying half of Trump's supporters are a basket of deplorables supports the branding of her as part of the elite, someone who looks down her nose at ordinary people, and I can't see any positive side to it for her.
I said on here that it was daft the day she said it. Looking at the company he's kept since, it's not a lie, though.
I spoke to a woman yesterday who is at her wits end: Her husband works full-time in a low-pay job, she has been does not work but looks after their four children, all under 10.
They privately rent a 3-bed house and have just been told by the letting agent that their rent is going up by 41% (!) in March. Reason? - BTL "owner's mortgage has gone up". There's nothing else locally they can move to for any less rent (there are hardly any 3-bed homes for rent locally). They are on the council housing register but would need to become actually homeless to stand any chance of getting anything, then it could be B&B for a long-stretch.
They receive UC support which was covering their rent but that's capped by the Local Housing Allowance at about 75% of their new rent. They were already struggling on the old rent and regularly borrowing from family mid-month, paying back when they got paid... and repeat. Rent, Council Tax, Electricity, Gas, Food, Transport - this is where all their money goes.
What kind of messed-up country have we become where:
1) Taxpayers have to subsidise a traditional working family to live? 2) Those subsidies are set based on 'local rent levels' which are way below any actual comparable local rents?
We are seeing this every week now: working families, both tenants and mortgaged homeowners, who have hit the point where they just cannot make sums add up.
Anyone who thinks we're about to hit a feel-good period is a bit deluded imo.
We need a huge increase in housebuilding and a big hike in the minimum wage - why the f*ck are taxpayers subsidising low-pay employers and BTL landlords?
Ultimately, no social model will turn one low salary into a comfortable standard of living for six humans.
That's kinda what I was thinking. Basically is someone on minimum wage with a non working wife really expecting to have enough money for 4 kids? What they are unhappy about is that we are not subsidising them sufficiently to give them the standard of living they think they are entitled to. Well, actually, they aren't.
"the standard of living they think they are entitled to" = "housed, warm and fed", in this case.
Maybe you're right though. Why did they have four children, how selfish of them. And yet, don't we have a demographic crisis? Don't we need more children?
The couple I week or two ago, contemplating selling house and trying to rent because they can't afford the mortgage now - both working, both on minimum wage - they only had two children.
That's the problem with meritocracy. People deserve a decent life even if the system decides them to have little merit.
Define 'decent'.
How much should people be protected from their own decisions? If I go out and waste money; become penniless through drink, drugs or gambling, do I personally deserve the same lifestyle as someone who has been careful and made better decisions? Sure, the welfare system should ensure I can *live*, but the same lifestyle?
On the other hand, a friend of mine was the first in her family to go to uni, yet soon afterwards was struck down by a life-limiting illness. She made no decisions that contributed to her illness. Does she deserve the same lifestyle as someone who continuously makes bad decisions?
If you say 'yes' to both of these, then I reckon the general public would disagree.
And this opens a hornet's nest...
I would suggest that a rented 3 bedroom property between 6 is not unreasonable.
When only one of them works? People's poor decisions should not be rewarded. I ensured I was earning more than 40k (in today's money) and had my own home before we had our first.
FFS just listen to yourself.
Next time I see the woman I'll suggest she gets her husband to earn £40k+. I doubt they had considered that idea.
(Btw In this instance the woman is not currently able to work; she had been medically assessed as such by the DWP and is receiving treatment.)
So why did they have four kids? How many kids did they already have when they started having other people subsidize their lives?
Perhaps they had 4 kids before their circumstances changed. There but for the grace of God go any of us.
You can be pretty sure if that was the case, the journalist would have mentioned that in the sob story.
What journalist?
I mean... I written a couple of thread headers, does that qualify me?
Even in a deep crisis- with voters turning away from them- it’s the Conservative party and the media that remain mighty while a Labour leadership- miles ahead in polls- ‘caves in’ again:
Why, oh why, do Labour do this? If they're going to drop it, do it quietly. Terrible message management.
Labour (and for that matter the Tories too) know how skint the Treasury is and how run down public services are. Councils, Schools, Universities, NHS, Home Office, Criminal Justice system, Armed Forces, etc are all knackered.
Whoever wins the election knows that they will have to sort it out. The Tories talk about tax cuts because they know they won't have to deal with the consequences. Starmer and Reeves don't want to promise spending that they cannot deliver.
Labour need to make the case for public *investment*. Every reputable economist on earth knows that British lack of capital investment is a major impediment to growth.
This particular policy was popular with Labour voters. It’s not obvious - apart from cowardice - why Labour have junked it.
Yes but as I pointed out there are many other areas crying out for public sector investment.
This year we will see Councils, Universities, Social Care, etc etc at risk of collapse.
Starmer and Reeves are right not to make hostages to fortune, and I am definitely in favour of Green policies.
We need a period of above average investment to catch up and get economic growth again. Spending more only to patch things up will leave us permanently behind.
It's a fair point about hostage to fortune though. It could be there are better investments to be made.
The latest BBC push notification is disastrous for the government:
"The suspect in an alkali attack in south London was convicted of a sex offence in 2018 and was later granted asylum"
Starmer could make a major move here: announce a Labour government will split the Home Office, taking away any role with border security, asylum processing, deportations etc etc and putting all that in a new Cabinet-level department.
Not fit for purpose.
There’s probably a ton of case law that requires us to grant asylum to serious criminals.
Like so many, he “converted to Christianity.” Pretending to be a Christian is even more popular than pretending to be gay, among those who game the system.
I can see it happening, Freeman, like Portillo, is a Cambridge man, which means he is very intelligent, a great communicator, and is in touch with the common man and woman, the public love that.
A former minister who quit claiming that his salary would not cover his mortgage has set his sights on a new role fronting TV documentaries.
George Freeman has told colleagues that he wants to showcase pioneering scientific projects covering the oceans, space and subatomic advances in life sciences.
Friends suggested that he could be “the next Michael Portillo”, alluding to another former Tory minister who found a post-politics career in broadcasting with documentaries about trains.
I sense that the immigration/asylum issue is going to destroy Starmer in his first term
Every fibre in his Woke body - and all his acolytes, MPs and activists - will want to let in more asylum seekers and more immigrants in general. All of Britain will want the opposite
This is why politicians should never insult 25% of voters. You end up with horrible situations like this.
Its perfectly fine to insult 25% of voters, if you can appeal to 75%.
Trump is offensive to more than 25% of voters too.
It is not “perfectly fine” to insult anyone, let alone 25% of voters
There is a difference between “could” and “should” which you fail to understand
Calling half of the electorate Deplorables didn’t end well for Mrs Clinton.
You have a go at your opponent, you don’t, ever, have a go at the people who might vote for them.
No, failing to campaign properly and flying over the "flyover states" to spend most of her time on the coasts which weren't even in play didn't work well for Clinton.
Trump has insulted far more voters, far more regularly, than Clinton ever did. In rather deranged BLOCK CAPS RANTS about LIBERALS and others most of the time.
He regularly insults quite a few of those who say they'll vote for him, if they are insufficiently subservient. 'Little Marco'; 'Birdbrain' etc.
It's part of Trump's brand - it annoys some voters, and it works for others. "He tells it like it is" "he stands up to the elite" bla bla bla. Clinton saying half of Trump's supporters are a basket of deplorables supports the branding of her as part of the elite, someone who looks down her nose at ordinary people, and I can't see any positive side to it for her.
I said on here that it was daft the day she said it. Looking at the company he's kept since, it's not a lie, though.
Yes, just speculating on why Clinton calling half of Trump's supporters deplorables might be terrible politics, while Trump insulting all kinds of people doesn't seem to lose him much support (net). There's also an element of sexism probably.
Surprised the Ed Davey must quit posters haven't been all over this.
No 10 angers Alan Bates with claim he was offered ‘fair’ Horizon compensation
Former sub-postmaster asks Government to ‘stop arguing with me’ and pay victims of Post Office scandal the money they deserve
Downing Street has come under fire over its compensation for Post Office Horizon scandal victims after it insisted Alan Bates was offered a “fair” deal.
Mr Bates, a former sub-postmaster who has fought a two-decade battle for justice, has said he will turn down a “cruel” and “derisory” payout offer that he claims was only around a sixth of the sum that he requested.
The Telegraph understands Kemi Badenoch, the Business Secretary, was saddened to hear his comments and called a meeting with Kevin Hollinrake, the postal minister, to look into the matter further.
Surprised the Ed Davey must quit posters haven't been all over this.
No 10 angers Alan Bates with claim he was offered ‘fair’ Horizon compensation
Former sub-postmaster asks Government to ‘stop arguing with me’ and pay victims of Post Office scandal the money they deserve
Downing Street has come under fire over its compensation for Post Office Horizon scandal victims after it insisted Alan Bates was offered a “fair” deal.
Mr Bates, a former sub-postmaster who has fought a two-decade battle for justice, has said he will turn down a “cruel” and “derisory” payout offer that he claims was only around a sixth of the sum that he requested.
The Telegraph understands Kemi Badenoch, the Business Secretary, was saddened to hear his comments and called a meeting with Kevin Hollinrake, the postal minister, to look into the matter further.
Surprised the Ed Davey must quit posters haven't been all over this.
No 10 angers Alan Bates with claim he was offered ‘fair’ Horizon compensation
Former sub-postmaster asks Government to ‘stop arguing with me’ and pay victims of Post Office scandal the money they deserve
Downing Street has come under fire over its compensation for Post Office Horizon scandal victims after it insisted Alan Bates was offered a “fair” deal.
Mr Bates, a former sub-postmaster who has fought a two-decade battle for justice, has said he will turn down a “cruel” and “derisory” payout offer that he claims was only around a sixth of the sum that he requested.
The Telegraph understands Kemi Badenoch, the Business Secretary, was saddened to hear his comments and called a meeting with Kevin Hollinrake, the postal minister, to look into the matter further.
I sense that the immigration/asylum issue is going to destroy Starmer in his first term
Every fibre in his Woke body - and all his acolytes, MPs and activists - will want to let in more asylum seekers and more immigrants in general. All of Britain will want the opposite
It will be the most tremendous clash
Contrast that with Sunak's success with the Rwanda scheme.
I sense that the immigration/asylum issue is going to destroy Starmer in his first term
Every fibre in his Woke body - and all his acolytes, MPs and activists - will want to let in more asylum seekers and more immigrants in general. All of Britain will want the opposite
It will be the most tremendous clash
So Starmer and those work for the Labour Party are not part “of Britain”. Bold claim. Where do you stand on the Labour voters “of Britain”. Are they, I dunno, Kenyan? Or just not “real” British?
Surprised the Ed Davey must quit posters haven't been all over this.
No 10 angers Alan Bates with claim he was offered ‘fair’ Horizon compensation
Former sub-postmaster asks Government to ‘stop arguing with me’ and pay victims of Post Office scandal the money they deserve
Downing Street has come under fire over its compensation for Post Office Horizon scandal victims after it insisted Alan Bates was offered a “fair” deal.
Mr Bates, a former sub-postmaster who has fought a two-decade battle for justice, has said he will turn down a “cruel” and “derisory” payout offer that he claims was only around a sixth of the sum that he requested.
The Telegraph understands Kemi Badenoch, the Business Secretary, was saddened to hear his comments and called a meeting with Kevin Hollinrake, the postal minister, to look into the matter further.
You'd think any sensible government would be trying to put the whole thing to bed asap
I blame lawyers trying to eek out more fees.
I blame that useless Kemi Badenoch, no wonder the idiots want to make her PM before the election.
She couldn't organise a pregnancy on a council estate.
I find your allocation of blame surprising, youve always been a Brexit man at heart. Your continued affaction for Cameron shows it - Dave was the man who made it all possible.
This is why politicians should never insult 25% of voters. You end up with horrible situations like this.
Its perfectly fine to insult 25% of voters, if you can appeal to 75%.
Trump is offensive to more than 25% of voters too.
It is not “perfectly fine” to insult anyone, let alone 25% of voters
There is a difference between “could” and “should” which you fail to understand
Calling half of the electorate Deplorables didn’t end well for Mrs Clinton.
You have a go at your opponent, you don’t, ever, have a go at the people who might vote for them.
No, failing to campaign properly and flying over the "flyover states" to spend most of her time on the coasts which weren't even in play didn't work well for Clinton.
Trump has insulted far more voters, far more regularly, than Clinton ever did. In rather deranged BLOCK CAPS RANTS about LIBERALS and others most of the time.
He regularly insults quite a few of those who say they'll vote for him, if they are insufficiently subservient. 'Little Marco'; 'Birdbrain' etc.
It's part of Trump's brand - it annoys some voters, and it works for others. "He tells it like it is" "he stands up to the elite" bla bla bla. Clinton saying half of Trump's supporters are a basket of deplorables supports the branding of her as part of the elite, someone who looks down her nose at ordinary people, and I can't see any positive side to it for her.
I said on here that it was daft the day she said it. Looking at the company he's kept since, it's not a lie, though.
Yes, just speculating on why Clinton calling half of Trump's supporters deplorables might be terrible politics, while Trump insulting all kinds of people doesn't seem to lose him much support (net). There's also an element of sexism probably.
None of you begin to understand what is going on. Have you been to America? Talked to Trump voters? They aren't all shit-eating rednecks with three teeth and a banjo
Trump voters are, in general, desperate. They think they are losing America, the America they know: largely white, powerful, peaceful (in its own way), largely Christian, tolerant of diversity, but not shoving it down your throat
You can deplore those opinions but they aren't necessarily insane. So, as they are desperate, Trump voters have nowhere else to go. Therefore they are willing to vote for a lunatic like Trump. as they sense he might, just might, reverse a tide which has been flowing the other way for decades, BECAUSE he is an offensive and aggressive oaf, whereas everyone else is spineless
Meanwhile, the left has many options. They sense they are winning the culture wars (and they are right). Wokeness prevails. DEI is everywhere. They can loftily abstain and talk about Bernie Sanders. 3m immigrants are illegally crossing into America, annually, they are potential future Democrat voters. And so on
I sense that the immigration/asylum issue is going to destroy Starmer in his first term
Every fibre in his Woke body - and all his acolytes, MPs and activists - will want to let in more asylum seekers and more immigrants in general. All of Britain will want the opposite
It will be the most tremendous clash
So Starmer and those work for the Labour Party are not part “of Britain”. Bold claim. Where do you stand on the Labour voters “of Britain”. Are they, I dunno, Kenyan? Or just not “real” British?
I quite like Angela Rayner. She's definitely British
I sense that the immigration/asylum issue is going to destroy Starmer in his first term
Every fibre in his Woke body - and all his acolytes, MPs and activists - will want to let in more asylum seekers and more immigrants in general. All of Britain will want the opposite
It will be the most tremendous clash
Contrast that with Sunak's success with the Rwanda scheme.
It looks like it was the famously Woke liberal Priti Patel in charge of the Home Office that granted the alkali attack fugitive asylum in 2021.
Surprised the Ed Davey must quit posters haven't been all over this.
No 10 angers Alan Bates with claim he was offered ‘fair’ Horizon compensation
Former sub-postmaster asks Government to ‘stop arguing with me’ and pay victims of Post Office scandal the money they deserve
Downing Street has come under fire over its compensation for Post Office Horizon scandal victims after it insisted Alan Bates was offered a “fair” deal.
Mr Bates, a former sub-postmaster who has fought a two-decade battle for justice, has said he will turn down a “cruel” and “derisory” payout offer that he claims was only around a sixth of the sum that he requested.
The Telegraph understands Kemi Badenoch, the Business Secretary, was saddened to hear his comments and called a meeting with Kevin Hollinrake, the postal minister, to look into the matter further.
I sense that the immigration/asylum issue is going to destroy Starmer in his first term
Every fibre in his Woke body - and all his acolytes, MPs and activists - will want to let in more asylum seekers and more immigrants in general. All of Britain will want the opposite
It will be the most tremendous clash
So Starmer and those work for the Labour Party are not part “of Britain”. Bold claim. Where do you stand on the Labour voters “of Britain”. Are they, I dunno, Kenyan? Or just not “real” British?
I quite like Angela Rayner. She's definitely British
Good to know that your case of Starmer Derangement Syndrome has yet to progress its final stage.
This is why politicians should never insult 25% of voters. You end up with horrible situations like this.
Its perfectly fine to insult 25% of voters, if you can appeal to 75%.
Trump is offensive to more than 25% of voters too.
It is not “perfectly fine” to insult anyone, let alone 25% of voters
There is a difference between “could” and “should” which you fail to understand
Calling half of the electorate Deplorables didn’t end well for Mrs Clinton.
You have a go at your opponent, you don’t, ever, have a go at the people who might vote for them.
No, failing to campaign properly and flying over the "flyover states" to spend most of her time on the coasts which weren't even in play didn't work well for Clinton.
Trump has insulted far more voters, far more regularly, than Clinton ever did. In rather deranged BLOCK CAPS RANTS about LIBERALS and others most of the time.
He regularly insults quite a few of those who say they'll vote for him, if they are insufficiently subservient. 'Little Marco'; 'Birdbrain' etc.
It's part of Trump's brand - it annoys some voters, and it works for others. "He tells it like it is" "he stands up to the elite" bla bla bla. Clinton saying half of Trump's supporters are a basket of deplorables supports the branding of her as part of the elite, someone who looks down her nose at ordinary people, and I can't see any positive side to it for her.
I said on here that it was daft the day she said it. Looking at the company he's kept since, it's not a lie, though.
Yes, just speculating on why Clinton calling half of Trump's supporters deplorables might be terrible politics, while Trump insulting all kinds of people doesn't seem to lose him much support (net). There's also an element of sexism probably.
None of you begin to understand what is going on. Have you been to America? Talked to Trump voters? They aren't all shit-eating rednecks with three teeth and a banjo
Trump voters are, in general, desperate. They think they are losing America, the America they know: largely white, powerful, peaceful (in its own way), largely Christian, tolerant of diversity, but not shoving it down your throat
You can deplore those opinions but they aren't necessarily insane. So, as they are desperate, Trump voters have nowhere else to go. Therefore they are willing to vote for a lunatic like Trump. as they sense he might, just might, reverse a tide which has been flowing the other way for decades, BECAUSE he is an offensive and aggressive oaf, whereas everyone else is spineless
Meanwhile, the left has many options. They sense they are winning the culture wars (and they are right). Wokeness prevails. DEI is everywhere. They can loftily abstain and talk about Bernie Sanders. 3m immigrants are illegally crossing into America, annually, they are potential future Democrat voters. And so on
Even my wife, as patriotic American as they come, would balk at describing America as peaceful, in any sense of the word.
I sense that the immigration/asylum issue is going to destroy Starmer in his first term
Every fibre in his Woke body - and all his acolytes, MPs and activists - will want to let in more asylum seekers and more immigrants in general. All of Britain will want the opposite
It will be the most tremendous clash
Contrast that with Sunak's success with the Rwanda scheme.
The Tories are dismally pathetic. They deserve the electoral drubbing coming their way
But then we will all move on, and it will be Labour trying to deal with this enormously corrosive and explosive issue. I see absolutely no ideas from them, on how to do it, indeed I see the opposite, a desire to hide away from it, bollocks about "being nicer to France", like that will solve it. Simply ludicrous
This will get found out very soon and then it will be Labour's turn to face the voters' wrath, and it could come really quickly, as Labour are even MORE pathetic, at their core
This is why politicians should never insult 25% of voters. You end up with horrible situations like this.
Its perfectly fine to insult 25% of voters, if you can appeal to 75%.
Trump is offensive to more than 25% of voters too.
It is not “perfectly fine” to insult anyone, let alone 25% of voters
There is a difference between “could” and “should” which you fail to understand
Calling half of the electorate Deplorables didn’t end well for Mrs Clinton.
You have a go at your opponent, you don’t, ever, have a go at the people who might vote for them.
No, failing to campaign properly and flying over the "flyover states" to spend most of her time on the coasts which weren't even in play didn't work well for Clinton.
Trump has insulted far more voters, far more regularly, than Clinton ever did. In rather deranged BLOCK CAPS RANTS about LIBERALS and others most of the time.
He regularly insults quite a few of those who say they'll vote for him, if they are insufficiently subservient. 'Little Marco'; 'Birdbrain' etc.
It's part of Trump's brand - it annoys some voters, and it works for others. "He tells it like it is" "he stands up to the elite" bla bla bla. Clinton saying half of Trump's supporters are a basket of deplorables supports the branding of her as part of the elite, someone who looks down her nose at ordinary people, and I can't see any positive side to it for her.
I said on here that it was daft the day she said it. Looking at the company he's kept since, it's not a lie, though.
Yes, just speculating on why Clinton calling half of Trump's supporters deplorables might be terrible politics, while Trump insulting all kinds of people doesn't seem to lose him much support (net). There's also an element of sexism probably.
None of you begin to understand what is going on. Have you been to America? Talked to Trump voters? They aren't all shit-eating rednecks with three teeth and a banjo
Trump voters are, in general, desperate. They think they are losing America, the America they know: largely white, powerful, peaceful (in its own way), largely Christian, tolerant of diversity, but not shoving it down your throat
You can deplore those opinions but they aren't necessarily insane. So, as they are desperate, Trump voters have nowhere else to go. Therefore they are willing to vote for a lunatic like Trump. as they sense he might, just might, reverse a tide which has been flowing the other way for decades, BECAUSE he is an offensive and aggressive oaf, whereas everyone else is spineless
Meanwhile, the left has many options. They sense they are winning the culture wars (and they are right). Wokeness prevails. DEI is everywhere. They can loftily abstain and talk about Bernie Sanders. 3m immigrants are illegally crossing into America, annually, they are potential future Democrat voters. And so on
Even my wife, as patriotic American as they come, would balk at describing America as peaceful, in any sense of the word.
I sense that the immigration/asylum issue is going to destroy Starmer in his first term
Every fibre in his Woke body - and all his acolytes, MPs and activists - will want to let in more asylum seekers and more immigrants in general. All of Britain will want the opposite
It will be the most tremendous clash
Contrast that with Sunak's success with the Rwanda scheme.
The Tories are dismally pathetic. They deserve the electoral drubbing coming their way
But then we will all move on, and it will be Labour trying to deal with this enormously corrosive and explosive issue. I see absolutely no ideas from the, on how to do it, indeed I see the opposite, a desire to hide away from it, bollocks about "being nicer to France", like that will solve it. Simply ludicrous
This will get found out very soon and then it will be Labour's turn to face the voters' wrath, and it could come really quickly, as Labour are even MORE pathetic, at their core
Dear old Sir Wibble hasnt actually done anything to engage with the electorate. Having serially failed to set out his stall, he'll end up disappointing everyone.
Surprised the Ed Davey must quit posters haven't been all over this.
No 10 angers Alan Bates with claim he was offered ‘fair’ Horizon compensation
Former sub-postmaster asks Government to ‘stop arguing with me’ and pay victims of Post Office scandal the money they deserve
Downing Street has come under fire over its compensation for Post Office Horizon scandal victims after it insisted Alan Bates was offered a “fair” deal.
Mr Bates, a former sub-postmaster who has fought a two-decade battle for justice, has said he will turn down a “cruel” and “derisory” payout offer that he claims was only around a sixth of the sum that he requested.
The Telegraph understands Kemi Badenoch, the Business Secretary, was saddened to hear his comments and called a meeting with Kevin Hollinrake, the postal minister, to look into the matter further.
£3 million pounds for each SPM and life sentences for the Post Office Board and investigators, and everyone who worked for Fujitsu on the Horizon project, we need some exemplary sentences.
Had Starmer had his way, we would probably actually have lower immigration, now.
We lost many thousands in critical services and service sectors back to the EU after Brexit, and the tories have incompetently had to make up the numbers. That has been a key driver of the much higher figures this year.
I sense that the immigration/asylum issue is going to destroy Starmer in his first term
Every fibre in his Woke body - and all his acolytes, MPs and activists - will want to let in more asylum seekers and more immigrants in general. All of Britain will want the opposite
It will be the most tremendous clash
Contrast that with Sunak's success with the Rwanda scheme.
The Tories are dismally pathetic. They deserve the electoral drubbing coming their way
But then we will all move on, and it will be Labour trying to deal with this enormously corrosive and explosive issue. I see absolutely no ideas from the, on how to do it, indeed I see the opposite, a desire to hide away from it, bollocks about "being nicer to France", like that will solve it. Simply ludicrous
This will get found out very soon and then it will be Labour's turn to face the voters' wrath, and it could come really quickly, as Labour are even MORE pathetic, at their core
Let’s be even more confrontational with Europe. It’s what “all of Britain” wants. More aggro with the neighbours. Let’s elect a strongman to sort things out and be really really tough with anyone who is not with “all of Britain”. After all, who knows “all of Britain” better than a North London member of the chattering classes who spends most of his time abroad?
I sense that the immigration/asylum issue is going to destroy Starmer in his first term
Every fibre in his Woke body - and all his acolytes, MPs and activists - will want to let in more asylum seekers and more immigrants in general. All of Britain will want the opposite
It will be the most tremendous clash
Contrast that with Sunak's success with the Rwanda scheme.
The Tories are dismally pathetic. They deserve the electoral drubbing coming their way
But then we will all move on, and it will be Labour trying to deal with this enormously corrosive and explosive issue. I see absolutely no ideas from them, on how to do it, indeed I see the opposite, a desire to hide away from it, bollocks about "being nicer to France", like that will solve it. Simply ludicrous
This will get found out very soon and then it will be Labour's turn to face the voters' wrath, and it could come really quickly, as Labour are even MORE pathetic, at their core
Labour/SKS will be polling the depths within a couple of years.
This is why politicians should never insult 25% of voters. You end up with horrible situations like this.
Its perfectly fine to insult 25% of voters, if you can appeal to 75%.
Trump is offensive to more than 25% of voters too.
It is not “perfectly fine” to insult anyone, let alone 25% of voters
There is a difference between “could” and “should” which you fail to understand
Calling half of the electorate Deplorables didn’t end well for Mrs Clinton.
You have a go at your opponent, you don’t, ever, have a go at the people who might vote for them.
No, failing to campaign properly and flying over the "flyover states" to spend most of her time on the coasts which weren't even in play didn't work well for Clinton.
Trump has insulted far more voters, far more regularly, than Clinton ever did. In rather deranged BLOCK CAPS RANTS about LIBERALS and others most of the time.
He regularly insults quite a few of those who say they'll vote for him, if they are insufficiently subservient. 'Little Marco'; 'Birdbrain' etc.
It's part of Trump's brand - it annoys some voters, and it works for others. "He tells it like it is" "he stands up to the elite" bla bla bla. Clinton saying half of Trump's supporters are a basket of deplorables supports the branding of her as part of the elite, someone who looks down her nose at ordinary people, and I can't see any positive side to it for her.
I said on here that it was daft the day she said it. Looking at the company he's kept since, it's not a lie, though.
Yes, just speculating on why Clinton calling half of Trump's supporters deplorables might be terrible politics, while Trump insulting all kinds of people doesn't seem to lose him much support (net). There's also an element of sexism probably.
None of you begin to understand what is going on. Have you been to America? Talked to Trump voters? They aren't all shit-eating rednecks with three teeth and a banjo
Trump voters are, in general, desperate. They think they are losing America, the America they know: largely white, powerful, peaceful (in its own way), largely Christian, tolerant of diversity, but not shoving it down your throat
You can deplore those opinions but they aren't necessarily insane. So, as they are desperate, Trump voters have nowhere else to go. Therefore they are willing to vote for a lunatic like Trump. as they sense he might, just might, reverse a tide which has been flowing the other way for decades, BECAUSE he is an offensive and aggressive oaf, whereas everyone else is spineless
Meanwhile, the left has many options. They sense they are winning the culture wars (and they are right). Wokeness prevails. DEI is everywhere. They can loftily abstain and talk about Bernie Sanders. 3m immigrants are illegally crossing into America, annually, they are potential future Democrat voters. And so on
It's Brexit again - people seeking a return to a past that never actually existed...
I sense that the immigration/asylum issue is going to destroy Starmer in his first term
Every fibre in his Woke body - and all his acolytes, MPs and activists - will want to let in more asylum seekers and more immigrants in general. All of Britain will want the opposite
It will be the most tremendous clash
Contrast that with Sunak's success with the Rwanda scheme.
The Tories are dismally pathetic. They deserve the electoral drubbing coming their way
But then we will all move on, and it will be Labour trying to deal with this enormously corrosive and explosive issue. I see absolutely no ideas from the, on how to do it, indeed I see the opposite, a desire to hide away from it, bollocks about "being nicer to France", like that will solve it. Simply ludicrous
This will get found out very soon and then it will be Labour's turn to face the voters' wrath, and it could come really quickly, as Labour are even MORE pathetic, at their core
Let’s be even more confrontational with Europe. It’s what “all of Britain” wants. More aggro with the neighbours. Let’s elect a strongman to sort things out and be really really tough with anyone who is not with “all of Britain”. After all, who knows “all of Britain” better than a North London member of the chattering classes who spends most of his time abroad?
Tell me, how is Labour going to tackle the small boats problem, other than ignoring it and pretending that being nice about croissants will charm the French into stopping them?
Do tell. We are all ears. Your lot will be in power by the end of the year, with this at the top of the To Do list
This is why politicians should never insult 25% of voters. You end up with horrible situations like this.
Its perfectly fine to insult 25% of voters, if you can appeal to 75%.
Trump is offensive to more than 25% of voters too.
It is not “perfectly fine” to insult anyone, let alone 25% of voters
There is a difference between “could” and “should” which you fail to understand
Calling half of the electorate Deplorables didn’t end well for Mrs Clinton.
You have a go at your opponent, you don’t, ever, have a go at the people who might vote for them.
No, failing to campaign properly and flying over the "flyover states" to spend most of her time on the coasts which weren't even in play didn't work well for Clinton.
Trump has insulted far more voters, far more regularly, than Clinton ever did. In rather deranged BLOCK CAPS RANTS about LIBERALS and others most of the time.
He regularly insults quite a few of those who say they'll vote for him, if they are insufficiently subservient. 'Little Marco'; 'Birdbrain' etc.
It's part of Trump's brand - it annoys some voters, and it works for others. "He tells it like it is" "he stands up to the elite" bla bla bla. Clinton saying half of Trump's supporters are a basket of deplorables supports the branding of her as part of the elite, someone who looks down her nose at ordinary people, and I can't see any positive side to it for her.
I said on here that it was daft the day she said it. Looking at the company he's kept since, it's not a lie, though.
Yes, just speculating on why Clinton calling half of Trump's supporters deplorables might be terrible politics, while Trump insulting all kinds of people doesn't seem to lose him much support (net). There's also an element of sexism probably.
None of you begin to understand what is going on. Have you been to America? Talked to Trump voters? They aren't all shit-eating rednecks with three teeth and a banjo
Trump voters are, in general, desperate. They think they are losing America, the America they know: largely white, powerful, peaceful (in its own way), largely Christian, tolerant of diversity, but not shoving it down your throat
You can deplore those opinions but they aren't necessarily insane. So, as they are desperate, Trump voters have nowhere else to go. Therefore they are willing to vote for a lunatic like Trump. as they sense he might, just might, reverse a tide which has been flowing the other way for decades, BECAUSE he is an offensive and aggressive oaf, whereas everyone else is spineless
Meanwhile, the left has many options. They sense they are winning the culture wars (and they are right). Wokeness prevails. DEI is everywhere. They can loftily abstain and talk about Bernie Sanders. 3m immigrants are illegally crossing into America, annually, they are potential future Democrat voters. And so on
Even my wife, as patriotic American as they come, would balk at describing America as peaceful, in any sense of the word.
Probably why I said "peaceful (in its own way)"
Which is exactly why I caveated my response with “in any sense of the word”. I guess that your definition of “peaceful” is you expressing “your truth”.
On asylum and immigration in general, the question is always this - what is the alternative?
The UK is part of the world. If we unilaterally withdraw from international treaties then thats our ability to trade gone with it. You can't trust Britain if it rips up agreements.
If we "simply" shut the border, or go further and actively try to send the foreign invaders home, what then? Our economy needs migrant labour in all of the jobs that Brits are too stupid / lazy / far away to do.
If we want a program to educate people to become doctors, or pay enough for elderly care that homes can employ locals now happy to clean up someone else's mother's piss for the living wage, or work in hospitality, or in factories where the jobs pay £ but the housing costs £££, then we need to do that first.
Wanting to create jobs for natives is not a problem. But the "send them home" people also don't want to spend money paying workers or training doctors or building new towns in the fens to house workers. For them, "send them home" is the end game.
Great! So we do. What happens now? We're fucked, that's what happens. There are a few million people out there viscerally angry, having been whipped into a rage by a right wing wanting to exploit their ignorance and stupidity. @Leon foams on about them and what they could do.
Sure! But on this issue They Are Wrong. We cannot do any of the simple solutions or we'd be fucked. The world doesn't operate at simple. It largely isn't black and white, and the job of politicians is to nudge people away from simplistic non-solutions like Rwanda, not keep selling it to them.
This is why politicians should never insult 25% of voters. You end up with horrible situations like this.
Its perfectly fine to insult 25% of voters, if you can appeal to 75%.
Trump is offensive to more than 25% of voters too.
It is not “perfectly fine” to insult anyone, let alone 25% of voters
There is a difference between “could” and “should” which you fail to understand
Calling half of the electorate Deplorables didn’t end well for Mrs Clinton.
You have a go at your opponent, you don’t, ever, have a go at the people who might vote for them.
No, failing to campaign properly and flying over the "flyover states" to spend most of her time on the coasts which weren't even in play didn't work well for Clinton.
Trump has insulted far more voters, far more regularly, than Clinton ever did. In rather deranged BLOCK CAPS RANTS about LIBERALS and others most of the time.
He regularly insults quite a few of those who say they'll vote for him, if they are insufficiently subservient. 'Little Marco'; 'Birdbrain' etc.
It's part of Trump's brand - it annoys some voters, and it works for others. "He tells it like it is" "he stands up to the elite" bla bla bla. Clinton saying half of Trump's supporters are a basket of deplorables supports the branding of her as part of the elite, someone who looks down her nose at ordinary people, and I can't see any positive side to it for her.
I said on here that it was daft the day she said it. Looking at the company he's kept since, it's not a lie, though.
Yes, just speculating on why Clinton calling half of Trump's supporters deplorables might be terrible politics, while Trump insulting all kinds of people doesn't seem to lose him much support (net). There's also an element of sexism probably.
None of you begin to understand what is going on. Have you been to America? Talked to Trump voters? They aren't all shit-eating rednecks with three teeth and a banjo
Trump voters are, in general, desperate. They think they are losing America, the America they know: largely white, powerful, peaceful (in its own way), largely Christian, tolerant of diversity, but not shoving it down your throat
You can deplore those opinions but they aren't necessarily insane. So, as they are desperate, Trump voters have nowhere else to go. Therefore they are willing to vote for a lunatic like Trump. as they sense he might, just might, reverse a tide which has been flowing the other way for decades, BECAUSE he is an offensive and aggressive oaf, whereas everyone else is spineless
Meanwhile, the left has many options. They sense they are winning the culture wars (and they are right). Wokeness prevails. DEI is everywhere. They can loftily abstain and talk about Bernie Sanders. 3m immigrants are illegally crossing into America, annually, they are potential future Democrat voters. And so on
Even my wife, as patriotic American as they come, would balk at describing America as peaceful, in any sense of the word.
Probably why I said "peaceful (in its own way)"
Which is exactly why I caveated my response with “in any sense of the word”. I guess that your definition of “peaceful” is you expressing “your truth”.
My hard work out here in the east is making me money. I have sums to invest
But where? My sense is that the AI/tech boom has a long way to go yet, and that it’s hard to go wrong with the Magnificent Seven - Google, Amazon, Nvidia, MS, etc
Even if there’s a war the tech companies will be crucial, if Trump wins I can’t see that harming US tech either. I know these shares have already risen a lot but I see them rising further for quite a while
Am i wrong?
My approach is to choose a number of indexes. I moved to ii, which has a flat rate charge, about six months ago. Since then:
XNAQ (Nasdaq) is doing best up 9.9%, Fidelity Index World P is up 6.9%, VUSA (S&P 500) is up 6.7%, Vanguard FTSE All Share is up 3.3% My Vanguard Emerging Markets is down 1.9%.
For excitement and the long term I have some individual Tesla shares.
Had Starmer had his way, we would probably have lower immigration now.
We lost many thousands in critical services and service sectors back to the EU after Brexit, and the tories have incompetently had to make up the numbers. That has been a key driver of the much higher figures this year.
The maths likely means that total net migration will drop in the next couple of years, because this year was boosted by there being fewer new overseas students in 2020 who would have been due to leave in 2023. Plus the Ukraine and Hong Kong arrivals.
Labour may well be presiding over net numbers around half of 2023 without actually doing anything.
Surprised the Ed Davey must quit posters haven't been all over this.
No 10 angers Alan Bates with claim he was offered ‘fair’ Horizon compensation
Former sub-postmaster asks Government to ‘stop arguing with me’ and pay victims of Post Office scandal the money they deserve
Downing Street has come under fire over its compensation for Post Office Horizon scandal victims after it insisted Alan Bates was offered a “fair” deal.
Mr Bates, a former sub-postmaster who has fought a two-decade battle for justice, has said he will turn down a “cruel” and “derisory” payout offer that he claims was only around a sixth of the sum that he requested.
The Telegraph understands Kemi Badenoch, the Business Secretary, was saddened to hear his comments and called a meeting with Kevin Hollinrake, the postal minister, to look into the matter further.
£3 million pounds for each SPM and life sentences for the Post Office Board and investigators, and everyone who worked for Fujitsu on the Horizon project, we need some exemplary sentences.
Surprised the Ed Davey must quit posters haven't been all over this.
No 10 angers Alan Bates with claim he was offered ‘fair’ Horizon compensation
Former sub-postmaster asks Government to ‘stop arguing with me’ and pay victims of Post Office scandal the money they deserve
Downing Street has come under fire over its compensation for Post Office Horizon scandal victims after it insisted Alan Bates was offered a “fair” deal.
Mr Bates, a former sub-postmaster who has fought a two-decade battle for justice, has said he will turn down a “cruel” and “derisory” payout offer that he claims was only around a sixth of the sum that he requested.
The Telegraph understands Kemi Badenoch, the Business Secretary, was saddened to hear his comments and called a meeting with Kevin Hollinrake, the postal minister, to look into the matter further.
£3 million pounds for each SPM and life sentences for the Post Office Board and investigators, and everyone who worked for Fujitsu on the Horizon project, we need some exemplary sentences.
While I think the post office board members deserve prison, I also think substantial fines, including confiscation of pension rights should apply. Any money being paid into the compensation fund.
I sense that the immigration/asylum issue is going to destroy Starmer in his first term
Every fibre in his Woke body - and all his acolytes, MPs and activists - will want to let in more asylum seekers and more immigrants in general. All of Britain will want the opposite
It will be the most tremendous clash
Contrast that with Sunak's success with the Rwanda scheme.
The Tories are dismally pathetic. They deserve the electoral drubbing coming their way
But then we will all move on, and it will be Labour trying to deal with this enormously corrosive and explosive issue. I see absolutely no ideas from the, on how to do it, indeed I see the opposite, a desire to hide away from it, bollocks about "being nicer to France", like that will solve it. Simply ludicrous
This will get found out very soon and then it will be Labour's turn to face the voters' wrath, and it could come really quickly, as Labour are even MORE pathetic, at their core
Dear old Sir Wibble hasnt actually done anything to engage with the electorate. Having serially failed to set out his stall, he'll end up disappointing everyone.
Being boring and over timid has transformed the Labour polling lead from -20% to +20% in 4 years.
It would be idiotic to change such a winning formula that is on course to deliver him the biggest Labour majority in our history.
On asylum and immigration in general, the question is always this - what is the alternative?
The UK is part of the world. If we unilaterally withdraw from international treaties then thats our ability to trade gone with it. You can't trust Britain if it rips up agreements.
If we "simply" shut the border, or go further and actively try to send the foreign invaders home, what then? Our economy needs migrant labour in all of the jobs that Brits are too stupid / lazy / far away to do.
If we want a program to educate people to become doctors, or pay enough for elderly care that homes can employ locals now happy to clean up someone else's mother's piss for the living wage, or work in hospitality, or in factories where the jobs pay £ but the housing costs £££, then we need to do that first.
Wanting to create jobs for natives is not a problem. But the "send them home" people also don't want to spend money paying workers or training doctors or building new towns in the fens to house workers. For them, "send them home" is the end game.
Great! So we do. What happens now? We're fucked, that's what happens. There are a few million people out there viscerally angry, having been whipped into a rage by a right wing wanting to exploit their ignorance and stupidity. @Leon foams on about them and what they could do.
Sure! But on this issue They Are Wrong. We cannot do any of the simple solutions or we'd be fucked. The world doesn't operate at simple. It largely isn't black and white, and the job of politicians is to nudge people away from simplistic non-solutions like Rwanda, not keep selling it to them.
I sense that the immigration/asylum issue is going to destroy Starmer in his first term
Every fibre in his Woke body - and all his acolytes, MPs and activists - will want to let in more asylum seekers and more immigrants in general. All of Britain will want the opposite
It will be the most tremendous clash
Contrast that with Sunak's success with the Rwanda scheme.
The Tories are dismally pathetic. They deserve the electoral drubbing coming their way
But then we will all move on, and it will be Labour trying to deal with this enormously corrosive and explosive issue. I see absolutely no ideas from the, on how to do it, indeed I see the opposite, a desire to hide away from it, bollocks about "being nicer to France", like that will solve it. Simply ludicrous
This will get found out very soon and then it will be Labour's turn to face the voters' wrath, and it could come really quickly, as Labour are even MORE pathetic, at their core
Dear old Sir Wibble hasnt actually done anything to engage with the electorate. Having serially failed to set out his stall, he'll end up disappointing everyone.
Being boring and over timid has transformed the Labour polling lead from -20% to +20% in 4 years.
It would be idiotic to change such a winning formula that is on course to deliver him the biggest Labour majority in our history.
Someone in Labour’s back room, should be thinking about the 2030 election!
I sense that the immigration/asylum issue is going to destroy Starmer in his first term
Every fibre in his Woke body - and all his acolytes, MPs and activists - will want to let in more asylum seekers and more immigrants in general. All of Britain will want the opposite
It will be the most tremendous clash
Contrast that with Sunak's success with the Rwanda scheme.
The Tories are dismally pathetic. They deserve the electoral drubbing coming their way
But then we will all move on, and it will be Labour trying to deal with this enormously corrosive and explosive issue. I see absolutely no ideas from the, on how to do it, indeed I see the opposite, a desire to hide away from it, bollocks about "being nicer to France", like that will solve it. Simply ludicrous
This will get found out very soon and then it will be Labour's turn to face the voters' wrath, and it could come really quickly, as Labour are even MORE pathetic, at their core
Dear old Sir Wibble hasnt actually done anything to engage with the electorate. Having serially failed to set out his stall, he'll end up disappointing everyone.
Being boring and over timid has transformed the Labour polling lead from -20% to +20% in 4 years.
It would be idiotic to change such a winning formula that is on course to deliver him the biggest Labour majority in our history.
His support is like a soup dish, wide but shallow. He may well get in but has nothing to back it. His massive change in the polls is not because of him ( compare to Blair ) but because HMG has decided to regularly shoot themselves in the foot with a pair of AK47s.
Had Starmer had his way, we would probably have lower immigration now.
We lost many thousands in critical services and service sectors back to the EU after Brexit, and the tories have incompetently had to make up the numbers. That has been a key driver of the much higher figures this year.
The maths likely means that total net migration will drop in the next couple of years, because this year was boosted by there being fewer new overseas students in 2020 who would have been due to leave in 2023. Plus the Ukraine and Hong Kong arrivals.
Labour may well be presiding over net numbers around half of 2023 without actually doing anything.
It doesn't matter. The public thinks that net migration is around 100,000 or fewer
When they realise it is four or seven times that, as is slowly beginning to happen, and will probably kick in next year under Labour, watch out
And Labour saying "well, we've got it just under half a million a year" isn't going to cut it
A key part of Rishi Sunak’s effort to stop the boats has collapsed after Home Office officials declared that Turkey was not a safe country to send migrants back to because of human rights concerns.
Ministers hoped to set up a migrant returns deal with Ankara after a surge in the number of Turkish people arriving illegally in Britain by small boat.
Three thousand Turkish nationals arrived that way last year, making them the third largest nationality to do so and representing a 162 per cent increase from the year before.
The deal would have mirrored an accord with Albania which has significantly cut the number of its citizens entering the UK in this way.
An internal Home Office review described Turkey as “a state that does not meet the criteria of being ‘generally safe’”.
It said that previous analysis of Turkish cases and anecdotal evidence had found 99 per cent of Turkish asylum cases in the UK were based on a fear of the state.
The majority were “political” opponents of the regime due to their actual or perceived involvement in opposition movements, including the Peoples’ Democratic Party, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party and the Gulen movement.
The assessment criticised Turkey’s “over-zealous” application of anti-terrorism laws and raised concerns over the independence of the judiciary and the provision of fair trials, particularly in “political” cases.
There are allegations of torture and ill-treatment in police custody and prison.
Notably, the assessment also raises concerns over Turkey’s compliance with adverse rulings from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which the Home Office assessment said “raised questions about adherence to the rule of law”.
This is significant given Sunak’s plans not to comply with interim injunctions from the same court.
His Rwanda bill will give ministers the power to ignore these so-called Rule 39 orders despite the president of the ECHR saying last month that this would be a breach of international law.
The Turkish example is a good example of why our current asylum system is simply unsustainable. There are dozens of absolute shit holes in the world with appalling views on gays, women, Christians, minorities along with huge propensities towards violence to assert their control. More than a billion people live in such places, a lot more if you look too carefully at China.
The idea that all of them have the right to seek asylum in this country is well meaning, compassionate and nuts. It is simply unsustainable. We need to move from a rights based system to a compassionate one that allows us the right to choose. So, we might choose Ukrainians or Hong Kong Chinese, for example. But we are unlikely to choose those from religions whose central tenants we find incompatible with our own beliefs. And we must reclaim the right to say no. I believe that this is inevitable and I would rather we did not elect a quasi fascist government to achieve it.
The latest BBC push notification is disastrous for the government:
"The suspect in an alkali attack in south London was convicted of a sex offence in 2018 and was later granted asylum"
That’s appalling. How on earth can you be granted asylum if you’ve been convicted of an offence.
Where in the law does it say the right to asylum doesn't apply to criminals?
The arsehole should have been on the next flight out. We have enough of our own criminals without importing more. Any immigrant/ supposed asylum seeker committing crimes shoudl be deported immediately. It is wishy washy liberal cry babies like you that have allowed the country to go down the drain.
Just saw the attack occured a few hundred metres where I used to live. Down a road we'd park our car. Scary.
As a liberal, I agree regarding the deportation of criminal asylum seekers.
I sense that the immigration/asylum issue is going to destroy Starmer in his first term
Every fibre in his Woke body - and all his acolytes, MPs and activists - will want to let in more asylum seekers and more immigrants in general. All of Britain will want the opposite
It will be the most tremendous clash
Contrast that with Sunak's success with the Rwanda scheme.
The Tories are dismally pathetic. They deserve the electoral drubbing coming their way
But then we will all move on, and it will be Labour trying to deal with this enormously corrosive and explosive issue. I see absolutely no ideas from the, on how to do it, indeed I see the opposite, a desire to hide away from it, bollocks about "being nicer to France", like that will solve it. Simply ludicrous
This will get found out very soon and then it will be Labour's turn to face the voters' wrath, and it could come really quickly, as Labour are even MORE pathetic, at their core
Dear old Sir Wibble hasnt actually done anything to engage with the electorate. Having serially failed to set out his stall, he'll end up disappointing everyone.
Being boring and over timid has transformed the Labour polling lead from -20% to +20% in 4 years.
It would be idiotic to change such a winning formula that is on course to deliver him the biggest Labour majority in our history.
His support is like a soup dish, wide but shallow. He may well get in but has nothing to back it. His massive change in the polls is not because of him ( compare to Blair ) but because HMG has decided to regularly shoot themselves in the foot with a pair of AK47s.
Fake news.
Tony Blair inherited a 28% lead when he became leader.
My hard work out here in the east is making me money. I have sums to invest
But where? My sense is that the AI/tech boom has a long way to go yet, and that it’s hard to go wrong with the Magnificent Seven - Google, Amazon, Nvidia, MS, etc
Even if there’s a war the tech companies will be crucial, if Trump wins I can’t see that harming US tech either. I know these shares have already risen a lot but I see them rising further for quite a while
Am i wrong?
My approach is to choose a number of indexes. I moved to ii, which has a flat rate charge, about six months ago. Since then:
XNAQ (Nasdaq) is doing best up 9.9%, Fidelity Index World P is up 6.9%, VUSA (S&P 500) is up 6.7%, Vanguard FTSE All Share is up 3.3% My Vanguard Emerging Markets is down 1.9%.
For excitement and the long term I have some individual Tesla shares.
i've just put £X000 into Fidelity, weirdly enough!
My idea is to do this over a week or so, choose one investment a day
This is why politicians should never insult 25% of voters. You end up with horrible situations like this.
Its perfectly fine to insult 25% of voters, if you can appeal to 75%.
Trump is offensive to more than 25% of voters too.
It is not “perfectly fine” to insult anyone, let alone 25% of voters
There is a difference between “could” and “should” which you fail to understand
Calling half of the electorate Deplorables didn’t end well for Mrs Clinton.
You have a go at your opponent, you don’t, ever, have a go at the people who might vote for them.
No, failing to campaign properly and flying over the "flyover states" to spend most of her time on the coasts which weren't even in play didn't work well for Clinton.
Trump has insulted far more voters, far more regularly, than Clinton ever did. In rather deranged BLOCK CAPS RANTS about LIBERALS and others most of the time.
He regularly insults quite a few of those who say they'll vote for him, if they are insufficiently subservient. 'Little Marco'; 'Birdbrain' etc.
It's part of Trump's brand - it annoys some voters, and it works for others. "He tells it like it is" "he stands up to the elite" bla bla bla. Clinton saying half of Trump's supporters are a basket of deplorables supports the branding of her as part of the elite, someone who looks down her nose at ordinary people, and I can't see any positive side to it for her.
I said on here that it was daft the day she said it. Looking at the company he's kept since, it's not a lie, though.
Yes, just speculating on why Clinton calling half of Trump's supporters deplorables might be terrible politics, while Trump insulting all kinds of people doesn't seem to lose him much support (net). There's also an element of sexism probably.
None of you begin to understand what is going on. Have you been to America? Talked to Trump voters? They aren't all shit-eating rednecks with three teeth and a banjo
Trump voters are, in general, desperate. They think they are losing America, the America they know: largely white, powerful, peaceful (in its own way), largely Christian, tolerant of diversity, but not shoving it down your throat
You can deplore those opinions but they aren't necessarily insane. So, as they are desperate, Trump voters have nowhere else to go. Therefore they are willing to vote for a lunatic like Trump. as they sense he might, just might, reverse a tide which has been flowing the other way for decades, BECAUSE he is an offensive and aggressive oaf, whereas everyone else is spineless
Meanwhile, the left has many options. They sense they are winning the culture wars (and they are right). Wokeness prevails. DEI is everywhere. They can loftily abstain and talk about Bernie Sanders. 3m immigrants are illegally crossing into America, annually, they are potential future Democrat voters. And so on
So your argument is they're not deplorable, they're just white supremacists?
I can see why you think those two things are different.
This is why politicians should never insult 25% of voters. You end up with horrible situations like this.
Its perfectly fine to insult 25% of voters, if you can appeal to 75%.
Trump is offensive to more than 25% of voters too.
It is not “perfectly fine” to insult anyone, let alone 25% of voters
There is a difference between “could” and “should” which you fail to understand
Calling half of the electorate Deplorables didn’t end well for Mrs Clinton.
You have a go at your opponent, you don’t, ever, have a go at the people who might vote for them.
No, failing to campaign properly and flying over the "flyover states" to spend most of her time on the coasts which weren't even in play didn't work well for Clinton.
Trump has insulted far more voters, far more regularly, than Clinton ever did. In rather deranged BLOCK CAPS RANTS about LIBERALS and others most of the time.
He regularly insults quite a few of those who say they'll vote for him, if they are insufficiently subservient. 'Little Marco'; 'Birdbrain' etc.
It's part of Trump's brand - it annoys some voters, and it works for others. "He tells it like it is" "he stands up to the elite" bla bla bla. Clinton saying half of Trump's supporters are a basket of deplorables supports the branding of her as part of the elite, someone who looks down her nose at ordinary people, and I can't see any positive side to it for her.
I said on here that it was daft the day she said it. Looking at the company he's kept since, it's not a lie, though.
Yes, just speculating on why Clinton calling half of Trump's supporters deplorables might be terrible politics, while Trump insulting all kinds of people doesn't seem to lose him much support (net). There's also an element of sexism probably.
None of you begin to understand what is going on. Have you been to America? Talked to Trump voters? They aren't all shit-eating rednecks with three teeth and a banjo
Trump voters are, in general, desperate. They think they are losing America, the America they know: largely white, powerful, peaceful (in its own way), largely Christian, tolerant of diversity, but not shoving it down your throat
You can deplore those opinions but they aren't necessarily insane. So, as they are desperate, Trump voters have nowhere else to go. Therefore they are willing to vote for a lunatic like Trump. as they sense he might, just might, reverse a tide which has been flowing the other way for decades, BECAUSE he is an offensive and aggressive oaf, whereas everyone else is spineless
Meanwhile, the left has many options. They sense they are winning the culture wars (and they are right). Wokeness prevails. DEI is everywhere. They can loftily abstain and talk about Bernie Sanders. 3m immigrants are illegally crossing into America, annually, they are potential future Democrat voters. And so on
Why then is the GOP in Congress refusing a deal with Biden to fund sorting out the border ? Actually we know, as several Senators and House members - with Trump's open encouragement - have said they don't want to 'give him a win' before the election.
This is why politicians should never insult 25% of voters. You end up with horrible situations like this.
Its perfectly fine to insult 25% of voters, if you can appeal to 75%.
Trump is offensive to more than 25% of voters too.
It is not “perfectly fine” to insult anyone, let alone 25% of voters
There is a difference between “could” and “should” which you fail to understand
Calling half of the electorate Deplorables didn’t end well for Mrs Clinton.
You have a go at your opponent, you don’t, ever, have a go at the people who might vote for them.
No, failing to campaign properly and flying over the "flyover states" to spend most of her time on the coasts which weren't even in play didn't work well for Clinton.
Trump has insulted far more voters, far more regularly, than Clinton ever did. In rather deranged BLOCK CAPS RANTS about LIBERALS and others most of the time.
He regularly insults quite a few of those who say they'll vote for him, if they are insufficiently subservient. 'Little Marco'; 'Birdbrain' etc.
It's part of Trump's brand - it annoys some voters, and it works for others. "He tells it like it is" "he stands up to the elite" bla bla bla. Clinton saying half of Trump's supporters are a basket of deplorables supports the branding of her as part of the elite, someone who looks down her nose at ordinary people, and I can't see any positive side to it for her.
I said on here that it was daft the day she said it. Looking at the company he's kept since, it's not a lie, though.
Yes, just speculating on why Clinton calling half of Trump's supporters deplorables might be terrible politics, while Trump insulting all kinds of people doesn't seem to lose him much support (net). There's also an element of sexism probably.
None of you begin to understand what is going on. Have you been to America? Talked to Trump voters? They aren't all shit-eating rednecks with three teeth and a banjo
Trump voters are, in general, desperate. They think they are losing America, the America they know: largely white, powerful, peaceful (in its own way), largely Christian, tolerant of diversity, but not shoving it down your throat
You can deplore those opinions but they aren't necessarily insane. So, as they are desperate, Trump voters have nowhere else to go. Therefore they are willing to vote for a lunatic like Trump. as they sense he might, just might, reverse a tide which has been flowing the other way for decades, BECAUSE he is an offensive and aggressive oaf, whereas everyone else is spineless
Meanwhile, the left has many options. They sense they are winning the culture wars (and they are right). Wokeness prevails. DEI is everywhere. They can loftily abstain and talk about Bernie Sanders. 3m immigrants are illegally crossing into America, annually, they are potential future Democrat voters. And so on
So your argument is they're not deplorable, they're just white supremacists?
I can see why you think those two things are different.
Ethnocentric, rather than supremacist. They don't want to lord it over anyone, but, yeah, they prefer a white majority America
Most humans - of any race - are ethnocentric, they prefer their own kind. Denying this is futile
I sense that the immigration/asylum issue is going to destroy Starmer in his first term
Every fibre in his Woke body - and all his acolytes, MPs and activists - will want to let in more asylum seekers and more immigrants in general. All of Britain will want the opposite
It will be the most tremendous clash
Contrast that with Sunak's success with the Rwanda scheme.
The Tories are dismally pathetic. They deserve the electoral drubbing coming their way
But then we will all move on, and it will be Labour trying to deal with this enormously corrosive and explosive issue. I see absolutely no ideas from the, on how to do it, indeed I see the opposite, a desire to hide away from it, bollocks about "being nicer to France", like that will solve it. Simply ludicrous
This will get found out very soon and then it will be Labour's turn to face the voters' wrath, and it could come really quickly, as Labour are even MORE pathetic, at their core
Let’s be even more confrontational with Europe. It’s what “all of Britain” wants. More aggro with the neighbours. Let’s elect a strongman to sort things out and be really really tough with anyone who is not with “all of Britain”. After all, who knows “all of Britain” better than a North London member of the chattering classes who spends most of his time abroad?
Tell me, how is Labour going to tackle the small boats problem, other than ignoring it and pretending that being nice about croissants will charm the French into stopping them?
Do tell. We are all ears. Your lot will be in power by the end of the year, with this at the top of the To Do list
Is Doug a spokes-seal for Labour ? Let's see how they do, since I can't tell you either.
I sense that the immigration/asylum issue is going to destroy Starmer in his first term
Every fibre in his Woke body - and all his acolytes, MPs and activists - will want to let in more asylum seekers and more immigrants in general. All of Britain will want the opposite
It will be the most tremendous clash
Contrast that with Sunak's success with the Rwanda scheme.
The Tories are dismally pathetic. They deserve the electoral drubbing coming their way
But then we will all move on, and it will be Labour trying to deal with this enormously corrosive and explosive issue. I see absolutely no ideas from the, on how to do it, indeed I see the opposite, a desire to hide away from it, bollocks about "being nicer to France", like that will solve it. Simply ludicrous
This will get found out very soon and then it will be Labour's turn to face the voters' wrath, and it could come really quickly, as Labour are even MORE pathetic, at their core
Dear old Sir Wibble hasnt actually done anything to engage with the electorate. Having serially failed to set out his stall, he'll end up disappointing everyone.
Being boring and over timid has transformed the Labour polling lead from -20% to +20% in 4 years.
It would be idiotic to change such a winning formula that is on course to deliver him the biggest Labour majority in our history.
His support is like a soup dish, wide but shallow. He may well get in but has nothing to back it. His massive change in the polls is not because of him ( compare to Blair ) but because HMG has decided to regularly shoot themselves in the foot with a pair of AK47s.
Fake news.
Tony Blair inherited a 28% lead when he became leader.
Because the Tories of the day were equally screwing things up and he kept that lead. Blair campaigned from the front and said what he was going to do, whereas Starmer is avoiding saying anything much. The Tories are doing Starmer's work for him, but assuming he gets in what then ? He will have to perform and there is not much evidence he has an agenda.
This is why politicians should never insult 25% of voters. You end up with horrible situations like this.
Its perfectly fine to insult 25% of voters, if you can appeal to 75%.
Trump is offensive to more than 25% of voters too.
It is not “perfectly fine” to insult anyone, let alone 25% of voters
There is a difference between “could” and “should” which you fail to understand
Calling half of the electorate Deplorables didn’t end well for Mrs Clinton.
You have a go at your opponent, you don’t, ever, have a go at the people who might vote for them.
No, failing to campaign properly and flying over the "flyover states" to spend most of her time on the coasts which weren't even in play didn't work well for Clinton.
Trump has insulted far more voters, far more regularly, than Clinton ever did. In rather deranged BLOCK CAPS RANTS about LIBERALS and others most of the time.
He regularly insults quite a few of those who say they'll vote for him, if they are insufficiently subservient. 'Little Marco'; 'Birdbrain' etc.
It's part of Trump's brand - it annoys some voters, and it works for others. "He tells it like it is" "he stands up to the elite" bla bla bla. Clinton saying half of Trump's supporters are a basket of deplorables supports the branding of her as part of the elite, someone who looks down her nose at ordinary people, and I can't see any positive side to it for her.
I said on here that it was daft the day she said it. Looking at the company he's kept since, it's not a lie, though.
Yes, just speculating on why Clinton calling half of Trump's supporters deplorables might be terrible politics, while Trump insulting all kinds of people doesn't seem to lose him much support (net). There's also an element of sexism probably.
None of you begin to understand what is going on. Have you been to America? Talked to Trump voters? They aren't all shit-eating rednecks with three teeth and a banjo
Trump voters are, in general, desperate. They think they are losing America, the America they know: largely white, powerful, peaceful (in its own way), largely Christian, tolerant of diversity, but not shoving it down your throat
You can deplore those opinions but they aren't necessarily insane. So, as they are desperate, Trump voters have nowhere else to go. Therefore they are willing to vote for a lunatic like Trump. as they sense he might, just might, reverse a tide which has been flowing the other way for decades, BECAUSE he is an offensive and aggressive oaf, whereas everyone else is spineless
Meanwhile, the left has many options. They sense they are winning the culture wars (and they are right). Wokeness prevails. DEI is everywhere. They can loftily abstain and talk about Bernie Sanders. 3m immigrants are illegally crossing into America, annually, they are potential future Democrat voters. And so on
Why then is the GOP in Congress refusing a deal with Biden to fund sorting out the border ? Actually we know, as several Senators and House members - with Trump's open encouragement - have said they don't want to 'give him a win' before the election.
That's how urgent the issue is to them.
I wouldn't argue with that, the GOP really ARE deplorable
Base politicking, but the Dems are just as bad, if not worse
I sense that the immigration/asylum issue is going to destroy Starmer in his first term
Every fibre in his Woke body - and all his acolytes, MPs and activists - will want to let in more asylum seekers and more immigrants in general. All of Britain will want the opposite
It will be the most tremendous clash
Contrast that with Sunak's success with the Rwanda scheme.
The Tories are dismally pathetic. They deserve the electoral drubbing coming their way
But then we will all move on, and it will be Labour trying to deal with this enormously corrosive and explosive issue. I see absolutely no ideas from the, on how to do it, indeed I see the opposite, a desire to hide away from it, bollocks about "being nicer to France", like that will solve it. Simply ludicrous
This will get found out very soon and then it will be Labour's turn to face the voters' wrath, and it could come really quickly, as Labour are even MORE pathetic, at their core
Dear old Sir Wibble hasnt actually done anything to engage with the electorate. Having serially failed to set out his stall, he'll end up disappointing everyone.
Being boring and over timid has transformed the Labour polling lead from -20% to +20% in 4 years.
It would be idiotic to change such a winning formula that is on course to deliver him the biggest Labour majority in our history.
His support is like a soup dish, wide but shallow. He may well get in but has nothing to back it. His massive change in the polls is not because of him ( compare to Blair ) but because HMG has decided to regularly shoot themselves in the foot with a pair of AK47s.
I think people’s memory of Blair’s popularity pre 1997 is a bit rosy. Turnout in 97 was very low and I distinctly remember loads of people claiming to be unexcited by either party and just keen to get the Tories out.
Labour have also spent much of the last month setting out very clear policy positions on business, taxation and regulation. Much clearer than any on the mush coming out of Sunak’s government. At work we have a live table tracking fiscal policies of the 3 main parties. The Labour tab is twice as long as the government one. The “they don’t have any policies” thing is a brand issue rather than based on an objective assessment of policies.
Had Starmer had his way, we would probably have lower immigration now.
We lost many thousands in critical services and service sectors back to the EU after Brexit, and the tories have incompetently had to make up the numbers. That has been a key driver of the much higher figures this year.
The maths likely means that total net migration will drop in the next couple of years, because this year was boosted by there being fewer new overseas students in 2020 who would have been due to leave in 2023. Plus the Ukraine and Hong Kong arrivals.
Labour may well be presiding over net numbers around half of 2023 without actually doing anything.
You shouldn't have warned Leon. It would have been fun to hear him choke on his cornflakes.
This is why politicians should never insult 25% of voters. You end up with horrible situations like this.
Its perfectly fine to insult 25% of voters, if you can appeal to 75%.
Trump is offensive to more than 25% of voters too.
It is not “perfectly fine” to insult anyone, let alone 25% of voters
There is a difference between “could” and “should” which you fail to understand
Calling half of the electorate Deplorables didn’t end well for Mrs Clinton.
You have a go at your opponent, you don’t, ever, have a go at the people who might vote for them.
No, failing to campaign properly and flying over the "flyover states" to spend most of her time on the coasts which weren't even in play didn't work well for Clinton.
Trump has insulted far more voters, far more regularly, than Clinton ever did. In rather deranged BLOCK CAPS RANTS about LIBERALS and others most of the time.
He regularly insults quite a few of those who say they'll vote for him, if they are insufficiently subservient. 'Little Marco'; 'Birdbrain' etc.
It's part of Trump's brand - it annoys some voters, and it works for others. "He tells it like it is" "he stands up to the elite" bla bla bla. Clinton saying half of Trump's supporters are a basket of deplorables supports the branding of her as part of the elite, someone who looks down her nose at ordinary people, and I can't see any positive side to it for her.
I said on here that it was daft the day she said it. Looking at the company he's kept since, it's not a lie, though.
Yes, just speculating on why Clinton calling half of Trump's supporters deplorables might be terrible politics, while Trump insulting all kinds of people doesn't seem to lose him much support (net). There's also an element of sexism probably.
None of you begin to understand what is going on. Have you been to America? Talked to Trump voters? They aren't all shit-eating rednecks with three teeth and a banjo
Trump voters are, in general, desperate. They think they are losing America, the America they know: largely white, powerful, peaceful (in its own way), largely Christian, tolerant of diversity, but not shoving it down your throat
You can deplore those opinions but they aren't necessarily insane. So, as they are desperate, Trump voters have nowhere else to go. Therefore they are willing to vote for a lunatic like Trump. as they sense he might, just might, reverse a tide which has been flowing the other way for decades, BECAUSE he is an offensive and aggressive oaf, whereas everyone else is spineless
Meanwhile, the left has many options. They sense they are winning the culture wars (and they are right). Wokeness prevails. DEI is everywhere. They can loftily abstain and talk about Bernie Sanders. 3m immigrants are illegally crossing into America, annually, they are potential future Democrat voters. And so on
Why then is the GOP in Congress refusing a deal with Biden to fund sorting out the border ? Actually we know, as several Senators and House members - with Trump's open encouragement - have said they don't want to 'give him a win' before the election.
That's how urgent the issue is to them.
I wouldn't argue with that, the GOP really ARE deplorable
Base politicking, but the Dems are just as bad, if not worse
Except they are not.
I would be the last to claim the Biden administration is perfect, but I'd judge it well above average.
Had Starmer had his way, we would probably have lower immigration now.
We lost many thousands in critical services and service sectors back to the EU after Brexit, and the tories have incompetently had to make up the numbers. That has been a key driver of the much higher figures this year.
The maths likely means that total net migration will drop in the next couple of years, because this year was boosted by there being fewer new overseas students in 2020 who would have been due to leave in 2023. Plus the Ukraine and Hong Kong arrivals.
Labour may well be presiding over net numbers around half of 2023 without actually doing anything.
You shouldn't have warned Leon. It would have been fun to hear him choke on his cornflakes.
It's 3pm in Phnom Penh and I am enjoying the afternoon sun, and about to go to a new wine shop, to see their selection. Apparently it is next door to what was once PP's most famous opium den/brothel, I shall take in the history
The latest BBC push notification is disastrous for the government:
"The suspect in an alkali attack in south London was convicted of a sex offence in 2018 and was later granted asylum"
That’s appalling. How on earth can you be granted asylum if you’ve been convicted of an offence.
Where in the law does it say the right to asylum doesn't apply to criminals?
The arsehole should have been on the next flight out. We have enough of our own criminals without importing more. Any immigrant/ supposed asylum seeker committing crimes shoudl be deported immediately. It is wishy washy liberal cry babies like you that have allowed the country to go down the drain.
Just saw the attack occured a few hundred metres where I used to live. Down a road we'd park our car. Scary.
As a liberal, I agree regarding the deportation of criminal asylum seekers.
Though we would have to improve relationships with the Taliban if we want to deport Afghan asylum seekers
On asylum and immigration in general, the question is always this - what is the alternative?
The UK is part of the world. If we unilaterally withdraw from international treaties then thats our ability to trade gone with it. You can't trust Britain if it rips up agreements.
If we "simply" shut the border, or go further and actively try to send the foreign invaders home, what then? Our economy needs migrant labour in all of the jobs that Brits are too stupid / lazy / far away to do.
If we want a program to educate people to become doctors, or pay enough for elderly care that homes can employ locals now happy to clean up someone else's mother's piss for the living wage, or work in hospitality, or in factories where the jobs pay £ but the housing costs £££, then we need to do that first.
Wanting to create jobs for natives is not a problem. But the "send them home" people also don't want to spend money paying workers or training doctors or building new towns in the fens to house workers. For them, "send them home" is the end game.
Great! So we do. What happens now? We're fucked, that's what happens. There are a few million people out there viscerally angry, having been whipped into a rage by a right wing wanting to exploit their ignorance and stupidity. @Leon foams on about them and what they could do.
Sure! But on this issue They Are Wrong. We cannot do any of the simple solutions or we'd be fucked. The world doesn't operate at simple. It largely isn't black and white, and the job of politicians is to nudge people away from simplistic non-solutions like Rwanda, not keep selling it to them.
You could have just said
"Let them all in"
It would have saved you time
Laughable. Who said "let them all in"
Some people don't have the intelligence to know they are being gaslit. You do. So why parrot moron non-solutions?
My hard work out here in the east is making me money. I have sums to invest
But where? My sense is that the AI/tech boom has a long way to go yet, and that it’s hard to go wrong with the Magnificent Seven - Google, Amazon, Nvidia, MS, etc
Even if there’s a war the tech companies will be crucial, if Trump wins I can’t see that harming US tech either. I know these shares have already risen a lot but I see them rising further for quite a while
Am i wrong?
My approach is to choose a number of indexes. I moved to ii, which has a flat rate charge, about six months ago. Since then:
XNAQ (Nasdaq) is doing best up 9.9%, Fidelity Index World P is up 6.9%, VUSA (S&P 500) is up 6.7%, Vanguard FTSE All Share is up 3.3% My Vanguard Emerging Markets is down 1.9%.
For excitement and the long term I have some individual Tesla shares.
i've just put £X000 into Fidelity, weirdly enough!
My idea is to do this over a week or so, choose one investment a day
How long are you wanting to tie the money up ?
Moderately long term, then you might be better advised to average your investment over a longer period of time.
The U.S. tech market is arguably just as likely to be down 20% as it is to be up that much over the next couple of years.
This is why politicians should never insult 25% of voters. You end up with horrible situations like this.
Its perfectly fine to insult 25% of voters, if you can appeal to 75%.
Trump is offensive to more than 25% of voters too.
It is not “perfectly fine” to insult anyone, let alone 25% of voters
There is a difference between “could” and “should” which you fail to understand
Calling half of the electorate Deplorables didn’t end well for Mrs Clinton.
You have a go at your opponent, you don’t, ever, have a go at the people who might vote for them.
No, failing to campaign properly and flying over the "flyover states" to spend most of her time on the coasts which weren't even in play didn't work well for Clinton.
Trump has insulted far more voters, far more regularly, than Clinton ever did. In rather deranged BLOCK CAPS RANTS about LIBERALS and others most of the time.
He regularly insults quite a few of those who say they'll vote for him, if they are insufficiently subservient. 'Little Marco'; 'Birdbrain' etc.
It's part of Trump's brand - it annoys some voters, and it works for others. "He tells it like it is" "he stands up to the elite" bla bla bla. Clinton saying half of Trump's supporters are a basket of deplorables supports the branding of her as part of the elite, someone who looks down her nose at ordinary people, and I can't see any positive side to it for her.
I said on here that it was daft the day she said it. Looking at the company he's kept since, it's not a lie, though.
Yes, just speculating on why Clinton calling half of Trump's supporters deplorables might be terrible politics, while Trump insulting all kinds of people doesn't seem to lose him much support (net). There's also an element of sexism probably.
None of you begin to understand what is going on. Have you been to America? Talked to Trump voters? They aren't all shit-eating rednecks with three teeth and a banjo
Trump voters are, in general, desperate. They think they are losing America, the America they know: largely white, powerful, peaceful (in its own way), largely Christian, tolerant of diversity, but not shoving it down your throat
You can deplore those opinions but they aren't necessarily insane. So, as they are desperate, Trump voters have nowhere else to go. Therefore they are willing to vote for a lunatic like Trump. as they sense he might, just might, reverse a tide which has been flowing the other way for decades, BECAUSE he is an offensive and aggressive oaf, whereas everyone else is spineless
Meanwhile, the left has many options. They sense they are winning the culture wars (and they are right). Wokeness prevails. DEI is everywhere. They can loftily abstain and talk about Bernie Sanders. 3m immigrants are illegally crossing into America, annually, they are potential future Democrat voters. And so on
Why then is the GOP in Congress refusing a deal with Biden to fund sorting out the border ? Actually we know, as several Senators and House members - with Trump's open encouragement - have said they don't want to 'give him a win' before the election.
That's how urgent the issue is to them.
I wouldn't argue with that, the GOP really ARE deplorable
Base politicking, but the Dems are just as bad, if not worse
Except they are not.
I would be the last to claim the Biden administration is perfect, but I'd judge it well above average.
The Dems are an absolute disgrace, and basically a bunch of Woke traitors. Biden is merely the genial demented fool at the top, who has done a decent-ish job with some competent advisors (I grant you that), but the Democrats ARE the cancer that rots America
I agree with the Trumpite diagnosis of America's problems, I simply couldn't ever vote for Donald Trump, as he is a dangerously unstable lunatic who could imperil the world
I sense that the immigration/asylum issue is going to destroy Starmer in his first term
Every fibre in his Woke body - and all his acolytes, MPs and activists - will want to let in more asylum seekers and more immigrants in general. All of Britain will want the opposite
It will be the most tremendous clash
Contrast that with Sunak's success with the Rwanda scheme.
The Tories are dismally pathetic. They deserve the electoral drubbing coming their way
But then we will all move on, and it will be Labour trying to deal with this enormously corrosive and explosive issue. I see absolutely no ideas from the, on how to do it, indeed I see the opposite, a desire to hide away from it, bollocks about "being nicer to France", like that will solve it. Simply ludicrous
This will get found out very soon and then it will be Labour's turn to face the voters' wrath, and it could come really quickly, as Labour are even MORE pathetic, at their core
Let’s be even more confrontational with Europe. It’s what “all of Britain” wants. More aggro with the neighbours. Let’s elect a strongman to sort things out and be really really tough with anyone who is not with “all of Britain”. After all, who knows “all of Britain” better than a North London member of the chattering classes who spends most of his time abroad?
Tell me, how is Labour going to tackle the small boats problem, other than ignoring it and pretending that being nice about croissants will charm the French into stopping them?
Do tell. We are all ears. Your lot will be in power by the end of the year, with this at the top of the To Do list
How are the Tories going to tackle the small boats problem?
For someone who foams on half cut about x Derangement Syndrome I do have to laugh. Is yours Mirror Derangement Syndrome? As in don't have one? Listen to yourself. You come across as bonkers as Elon Musk. Without the immense wealth or talent. Just the ranty alt-right foaming.
The latest BBC push notification is disastrous for the government:
"The suspect in an alkali attack in south London was convicted of a sex offence in 2018 and was later granted asylum"
That’s appalling. How on earth can you be granted asylum if you’ve been convicted of an offence.
Where in the law does it say the right to asylum doesn't apply to criminals?
The arsehole should have been on the next flight out. We have enough of our own criminals without importing more. Any immigrant/ supposed asylum seeker committing crimes shoudl be deported immediately. It is wishy washy liberal cry babies like you that have allowed the country to go down the drain.
Just saw the attack occured a few hundred metres where I used to live. Down a road we'd park our car. Scary.
As a liberal, I agree regarding the deportation of criminal asylum seekers.
Though we would have to improve relationships with the Taliban if we want to deport Afghan asylum seekers
I consider myself a liberal but I agree with Ratters. If a convicted criminal can't or won't go back home then detain them indefinitely until they change their mind or a better solution can be found.
My hard work out here in the east is making me money. I have sums to invest
But where? My sense is that the AI/tech boom has a long way to go yet, and that it’s hard to go wrong with the Magnificent Seven - Google, Amazon, Nvidia, MS, etc
Even if there’s a war the tech companies will be crucial, if Trump wins I can’t see that harming US tech either. I know these shares have already risen a lot but I see them rising further for quite a while
Am i wrong?
My approach is to choose a number of indexes. I moved to ii, which has a flat rate charge, about six months ago. Since then:
XNAQ (Nasdaq) is doing best up 9.9%, Fidelity Index World P is up 6.9%, VUSA (S&P 500) is up 6.7%, Vanguard FTSE All Share is up 3.3% My Vanguard Emerging Markets is down 1.9%.
For excitement and the long term I have some individual Tesla shares.
i've just put £X000 into Fidelity, weirdly enough!
My idea is to do this over a week or so, choose one investment a day
I sense that the immigration/asylum issue is going to destroy Starmer in his first term
Every fibre in his Woke body - and all his acolytes, MPs and activists - will want to let in more asylum seekers and more immigrants in general. All of Britain will want the opposite
It will be the most tremendous clash
Contrast that with Sunak's success with the Rwanda scheme.
The Tories are dismally pathetic. They deserve the electoral drubbing coming their way
But then we will all move on, and it will be Labour trying to deal with this enormously corrosive and explosive issue. I see absolutely no ideas from the, on how to do it, indeed I see the opposite, a desire to hide away from it, bollocks about "being nicer to France", like that will solve it. Simply ludicrous
This will get found out very soon and then it will be Labour's turn to face the voters' wrath, and it could come really quickly, as Labour are even MORE pathetic, at their core
Dear old Sir Wibble hasnt actually done anything to engage with the electorate. Having serially failed to set out his stall, he'll end up disappointing everyone.
Being boring and over timid has transformed the Labour polling lead from -20% to +20% in 4 years.
It would be idiotic to change such a winning formula that is on course to deliver him the biggest Labour majority in our history.
His support is like a soup dish, wide but shallow. He may well get in but has nothing to back it. His massive change in the polls is not because of him ( compare to Blair ) but because HMG has decided to regularly shoot themselves in the foot with a pair of AK47s.
I think people’s memory of Blair’s popularity pre 1997 is a bit rosy. Turnout in 97 was very low and I distinctly remember loads of people claiming to be unexcited by either party and just keen to get the Tories out.
Labour have also spent much of the last month setting out very clear policy positions on business, taxation and regulation. Much clearer than any on the mush coming out of Sunak’s government. At work we have a live table tracking fiscal policies of the 3 main parties. The Labour tab is twice as long as the government one. The “they don’t have any policies” thing is a brand issue rather than based on an objective assessment of policies.
UK election turnout was 71%. The low turnout election was 2001 at 59%.
Labour currently have set out positions on business along the lines of we'll do what Sunak is doing. And since Sunak and Hunt are currently in government there isnt quite the need to say what they will do as they are doing it. Unfortunately. The only thing I can give Starmer credit for is his statement on housing - which I support. But I doubt he'll do anything about it.
Had Starmer had his way, we would probably have lower immigration now.
We lost many thousands in critical services and service sectors back to the EU after Brexit, and the tories have incompetently had to make up the numbers. That has been a key driver of the much higher figures this year.
The maths likely means that total net migration will drop in the next couple of years, because this year was boosted by there being fewer new overseas students in 2020 who would have been due to leave in 2023. Plus the Ukraine and Hong Kong arrivals.
Labour may well be presiding over net numbers around half of 2023 without actually doing anything.
You shouldn't have warned Leon. It would have been fun to hear him choke on his cornflakes.
It'll be "Labour's sad Britain - the land no one wants to come to".
This is why politicians should never insult 25% of voters. You end up with horrible situations like this.
Its perfectly fine to insult 25% of voters, if you can appeal to 75%.
Trump is offensive to more than 25% of voters too.
It is not “perfectly fine” to insult anyone, let alone 25% of voters
There is a difference between “could” and “should” which you fail to understand
Calling half of the electorate Deplorables didn’t end well for Mrs Clinton.
You have a go at your opponent, you don’t, ever, have a go at the people who might vote for them.
No, failing to campaign properly and flying over the "flyover states" to spend most of her time on the coasts which weren't even in play didn't work well for Clinton.
Trump has insulted far more voters, far more regularly, than Clinton ever did. In rather deranged BLOCK CAPS RANTS about LIBERALS and others most of the time.
He regularly insults quite a few of those who say they'll vote for him, if they are insufficiently subservient. 'Little Marco'; 'Birdbrain' etc.
It's part of Trump's brand - it annoys some voters, and it works for others. "He tells it like it is" "he stands up to the elite" bla bla bla. Clinton saying half of Trump's supporters are a basket of deplorables supports the branding of her as part of the elite, someone who looks down her nose at ordinary people, and I can't see any positive side to it for her.
I said on here that it was daft the day she said it. Looking at the company he's kept since, it's not a lie, though.
Yes, just speculating on why Clinton calling half of Trump's supporters deplorables might be terrible politics, while Trump insulting all kinds of people doesn't seem to lose him much support (net). There's also an element of sexism probably.
None of you begin to understand what is going on. Have you been to America? Talked to Trump voters? They aren't all shit-eating rednecks with three teeth and a banjo
Trump voters are, in general, desperate. They think they are losing America, the America they know: largely white, powerful, peaceful (in its own way), largely Christian, tolerant of diversity, but not shoving it down your throat
You can deplore those opinions but they aren't necessarily insane. So, as they are desperate, Trump voters have nowhere else to go. Therefore they are willing to vote for a lunatic like Trump. as they sense he might, just might, reverse a tide which has been flowing the other way for decades, BECAUSE he is an offensive and aggressive oaf, whereas everyone else is spineless
Meanwhile, the left has many options. They sense they are winning the culture wars (and they are right). Wokeness prevails. DEI is everywhere. They can loftily abstain and talk about Bernie Sanders. 3m immigrants are illegally crossing into America, annually, they are potential future Democrat voters. And so on
So your argument is they're not deplorable, they're just white supremacists?
I can see why you think those two things are different.
Ethnocentric, rather than supremacist. They don't want to lord it over anyone, but, yeah, they prefer a white majority America
Most humans - of any race - are ethnocentric, they prefer their own kind. Denying this is futile
Ethnocentric is a cute way of saying "racist".
If you're not an ignorant racist shiteater then "their own kind" has nothing to do with race.
Many rightwing white Tories will find Patel, Badenoch and Sunak more "their own kind" than Corbyn, Raynor and Long-Bailey.
When watching The Ashes I find Moeen Ali to be more "my own kind" than Steve Smith.
Had Starmer had his way, we would probably have lower immigration now.
We lost many thousands in critical services and service sectors back to the EU after Brexit, and the tories have incompetently had to make up the numbers. That has been a key driver of the much higher figures this year.
The maths likely means that total net migration will drop in the next couple of years, because this year was boosted by there being fewer new overseas students in 2020 who would have been due to leave in 2023. Plus the Ukraine and Hong Kong arrivals.
Labour may well be presiding over net numbers around half of 2023 without actually doing anything.
You shouldn't have warned Leon. It would have been fun to hear him choke on his cornflakes.
It's 3pm in Phnom Penh and I am enjoying the afternoon sun, and about to go to a new wine shop, to see their selection. Apparently it is next door to what was once PP's most famous opium den/brothel, I shall take in the history
Also, cornflakes???? PFFF
You should recognise a metaphor when you see one, being a knapper and all.
This is why politicians should never insult 25% of voters. You end up with horrible situations like this.
Its perfectly fine to insult 25% of voters, if you can appeal to 75%.
Trump is offensive to more than 25% of voters too.
It is not “perfectly fine” to insult anyone, let alone 25% of voters
There is a difference between “could” and “should” which you fail to understand
Calling half of the electorate Deplorables didn’t end well for Mrs Clinton.
You have a go at your opponent, you don’t, ever, have a go at the people who might vote for them.
No, failing to campaign properly and flying over the "flyover states" to spend most of her time on the coasts which weren't even in play didn't work well for Clinton.
Trump has insulted far more voters, far more regularly, than Clinton ever did. In rather deranged BLOCK CAPS RANTS about LIBERALS and others most of the time.
He regularly insults quite a few of those who say they'll vote for him, if they are insufficiently subservient. 'Little Marco'; 'Birdbrain' etc.
It's part of Trump's brand - it annoys some voters, and it works for others. "He tells it like it is" "he stands up to the elite" bla bla bla. Clinton saying half of Trump's supporters are a basket of deplorables supports the branding of her as part of the elite, someone who looks down her nose at ordinary people, and I can't see any positive side to it for her.
I said on here that it was daft the day she said it. Looking at the company he's kept since, it's not a lie, though.
Yes, just speculating on why Clinton calling half of Trump's supporters deplorables might be terrible politics, while Trump insulting all kinds of people doesn't seem to lose him much support (net). There's also an element of sexism probably.
None of you begin to understand what is going on. Have you been to America? Talked to Trump voters? They aren't all shit-eating rednecks with three teeth and a banjo
Trump voters are, in general, desperate. They think they are losing America, the America they know: largely white, powerful, peaceful (in its own way), largely Christian, tolerant of diversity, but not shoving it down your throat
You can deplore those opinions but they aren't necessarily insane. So, as they are desperate, Trump voters have nowhere else to go. Therefore they are willing to vote for a lunatic like Trump. as they sense he might, just might, reverse a tide which has been flowing the other way for decades, BECAUSE he is an offensive and aggressive oaf, whereas everyone else is spineless
Meanwhile, the left has many options. They sense they are winning the culture wars (and they are right). Wokeness prevails. DEI is everywhere. They can loftily abstain and talk about Bernie Sanders. 3m immigrants are illegally crossing into America, annually, they are potential future Democrat voters. And so on
Why then is the GOP in Congress refusing a deal with Biden to fund sorting out the border ? Actually we know, as several Senators and House members - with Trump's open encouragement - have said they don't want to 'give him a win' before the election.
That's how urgent the issue is to them.
I wouldn't argue with that, the GOP really ARE deplorable
Base politicking, but the Dems are just as bad, if not worse
Except they are not.
I would be the last to claim the Biden administration is perfect, but I'd judge it well above average.
The Dems are an absolute disgrace, and basically a bunch of Woke traitors. Biden is merely the genial demented fool at the top, who has done a decent-ish job with some competent advisors (I grant you that), but the Democrats ARE the cancer that rots America
I agree with the Trumpite diagnosis of America's problems, I simply couldn't ever vote for Donald Trump, as he is a dangerously unstable lunatic who could imperil the world
A key part of Rishi Sunak’s effort to stop the boats has collapsed after Home Office officials declared that Turkey was not a safe country to send migrants back to because of human rights concerns.
Ministers hoped to set up a migrant returns deal with Ankara after a surge in the number of Turkish people arriving illegally in Britain by small boat.
Three thousand Turkish nationals arrived that way last year, making them the third largest nationality to do so and representing a 162 per cent increase from the year before.
The deal would have mirrored an accord with Albania which has significantly cut the number of its citizens entering the UK in this way.
An internal Home Office review described Turkey as “a state that does not meet the criteria of being ‘generally safe’”.
It said that previous analysis of Turkish cases and anecdotal evidence had found 99 per cent of Turkish asylum cases in the UK were based on a fear of the state.
The majority were “political” opponents of the regime due to their actual or perceived involvement in opposition movements, including the Peoples’ Democratic Party, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party and the Gulen movement.
The assessment criticised Turkey’s “over-zealous” application of anti-terrorism laws and raised concerns over the independence of the judiciary and the provision of fair trials, particularly in “political” cases.
There are allegations of torture and ill-treatment in police custody and prison.
Notably, the assessment also raises concerns over Turkey’s compliance with adverse rulings from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which the Home Office assessment said “raised questions about adherence to the rule of law”.
This is significant given Sunak’s plans not to comply with interim injunctions from the same court.
His Rwanda bill will give ministers the power to ignore these so-called Rule 39 orders despite the president of the ECHR saying last month that this would be a breach of international law.
The Turkish example is a good example of why our current asylum system is simply unsustainable. There are dozens of absolute shit holes in the world with appalling views on gays, women, Christians, minorities along with huge propensities towards violence to assert their control. More than a billion people live in such places, a lot more if you look too carefully at China.
The idea that all of them have the right to seek asylum in this country is well meaning, compassionate and nuts. It is simply unsustainable. We need to move from a rights based system to a compassionate one that allows us the right to choose. So, we might choose Ukrainians or Hong Kong Chinese, for example. But we are unlikely to choose those from religions whose central tenants we find incompatible with our own beliefs. And we must reclaim the right to say no. I believe that this is inevitable and I would rather we did not elect a quasi fascist government to achieve it.
Withdrawing from the UN Convention on Refugees would be required, but seems not to have any real sanction. Indeed it seems no country has had any enforcement action for not following the rules while in membership.
I sense that the immigration/asylum issue is going to destroy Starmer in his first term
Every fibre in his Woke body - and all his acolytes, MPs and activists - will want to let in more asylum seekers and more immigrants in general. All of Britain will want the opposite
It will be the most tremendous clash
Contrast that with Sunak's success with the Rwanda scheme.
The Tories are dismally pathetic. They deserve the electoral drubbing coming their way
But then we will all move on, and it will be Labour trying to deal with this enormously corrosive and explosive issue. I see absolutely no ideas from the, on how to do it, indeed I see the opposite, a desire to hide away from it, bollocks about "being nicer to France", like that will solve it. Simply ludicrous
This will get found out very soon and then it will be Labour's turn to face the voters' wrath, and it could come really quickly, as Labour are even MORE pathetic, at their core
Let’s be even more confrontational with Europe. It’s what “all of Britain” wants. More aggro with the neighbours. Let’s elect a strongman to sort things out and be really really tough with anyone who is not with “all of Britain”. After all, who knows “all of Britain” better than a North London member of the chattering classes who spends most of his time abroad?
Tell me, how is Labour going to tackle the small boats problem, other than ignoring it and pretending that being nice about croissants will charm the French into stopping them?
Do tell. We are all ears. Your lot will be in power by the end of the year, with this at the top of the To Do list
“Your lot”? Of course. You are the vox populi. You speak for “all of Britain”. Anyone who disagrees is the “other”. While I’ll probably vote for them this time, I’m not even a regular Labour voter, let alone a member or activist, you absolute complete moron. Anyone who doesn’t take your side in the culture war is a traitor to Britain and part of the other against “all of Britain”.
Where have the intelligent posters on here gone? We’re reduced to your low IQ rantings. Your solution “tow them back” is so simplistically risible (dump them on the beach at Boulogne? How does the towing boat get close enough if the French object? We going to invade? Shoot our way ashore? How will it stop people trying?) that a child could point out the flaws. Let’s try it. I’m sure it would surprise on the upside.
I don’t have a simple solution like yours because there isn’t one. Ideally I’d like to remove the factors that mean so many, innocent and criminal alike, want to migrate. That isn’t going to happen.
I sense that the immigration/asylum issue is going to destroy Starmer in his first term
Every fibre in his Woke body - and all his acolytes, MPs and activists - will want to let in more asylum seekers and more immigrants in general. All of Britain will want the opposite
It will be the most tremendous clash
Contrast that with Sunak's success with the Rwanda scheme.
The Tories are dismally pathetic. They deserve the electoral drubbing coming their way
But then we will all move on, and it will be Labour trying to deal with this enormously corrosive and explosive issue. I see absolutely no ideas from the, on how to do it, indeed I see the opposite, a desire to hide away from it, bollocks about "being nicer to France", like that will solve it. Simply ludicrous
This will get found out very soon and then it will be Labour's turn to face the voters' wrath, and it could come really quickly, as Labour are even MORE pathetic, at their core
Dear old Sir Wibble hasnt actually done anything to engage with the electorate. Having serially failed to set out his stall, he'll end up disappointing everyone.
Being boring and over timid has transformed the Labour polling lead from -20% to +20% in 4 years.
It would be idiotic to change such a winning formula that is on course to deliver him the biggest Labour majority in our history.
His support is like a soup dish, wide but shallow. He may well get in but has nothing to back it. His massive change in the polls is not because of him ( compare to Blair ) but because HMG has decided to regularly shoot themselves in the foot with a pair of AK47s.
I think people’s memory of Blair’s popularity pre 1997 is a bit rosy. Turnout in 97 was very low and I distinctly remember loads of people claiming to be unexcited by either party and just keen to get the Tories out.
Labour have also spent much of the last month setting out very clear policy positions on business, taxation and regulation. Much clearer than any on the mush coming out of Sunak’s government. At work we have a live table tracking fiscal policies of the 3 main parties. The Labour tab is twice as long as the government one. The “they don’t have any policies” thing is a brand issue rather than based on an objective assessment of policies.
I remember a lot of people expressing the view that Blair was a Tory and that there was little to choose between them, a view that has resonance to this day. He was certainly a child of Thatcher and accepted her consensus almost completely as shown by the retention of nearly all of her employment laws throughout his premiership.
I am interested in the idea that Labour has a lot of policies now because my perception, and I pay a lot more attention than most, is the opposite. Even the few specific commitments they have made they seem to want to retreat from, as we saw with the Green funding yesterday.
I have some sympathy. It is obvious they are going to inherit a directionless, chaotic mess from the current government and they are struggling to see what the priorities are and where to start. When you don't even know where the starting line is it is hardly surprising that someone as cautious as Starmer is reluctant to have fixed commitments.
Mr. Sandpit, Albon's eminently possible. I'd be surprised if Piastri isn't locked down contract-wise.
I’m sure Piastri will tell you he has a solid contract, and so will Zak Brown.
Rough numbers: Piastri’s current salary $3m Lewis’s current salary $50m Mercedes offer to McLaren $30m cash Mercedes salary offer to Piastri $10m
I reckon that a way gets found to make it happen, ZB is enough of a hard-nosed businessman to know that everyone has their price. Perhaps they could also throw in a loan deal for Andrea Antonelli, who’s a Mercedes young driver expected to do very well in F2 this season.
I sense that the immigration/asylum issue is going to destroy Starmer in his first term
Every fibre in his Woke body - and all his acolytes, MPs and activists - will want to let in more asylum seekers and more immigrants in general. All of Britain will want the opposite
It will be the most tremendous clash
Contrast that with Sunak's success with the Rwanda scheme.
The Tories are dismally pathetic. They deserve the electoral drubbing coming their way
But then we will all move on, and it will be Labour trying to deal with this enormously corrosive and explosive issue. I see absolutely no ideas from the, on how to do it, indeed I see the opposite, a desire to hide away from it, bollocks about "being nicer to France", like that will solve it. Simply ludicrous
This will get found out very soon and then it will be Labour's turn to face the voters' wrath, and it could come really quickly, as Labour are even MORE pathetic, at their core
Let’s be even more confrontational with Europe. It’s what “all of Britain” wants. More aggro with the neighbours. Let’s elect a strongman to sort things out and be really really tough with anyone who is not with “all of Britain”. After all, who knows “all of Britain” better than a North London member of the chattering classes who spends most of his time abroad?
Tell me, how is Labour going to tackle the small boats problem, other than ignoring it and pretending that being nice about croissants will charm the French into stopping them?
Do tell. We are all ears. Your lot will be in power by the end of the year, with this at the top of the To Do list
Ideally I’d like to remove the factors that mean so many, innocent and criminal alike, want to migrate. That isn’t going to happen.
It isn't going to happen today but it is the only longer term sustainable solution. See also Islamist terrorism.
(Just answering your plea for an intelligent poster to participate.)
My hard work out here in the east is making me money. I have sums to invest
But where? My sense is that the AI/tech boom has a long way to go yet, and that it’s hard to go wrong with the Magnificent Seven - Google, Amazon, Nvidia, MS, etc
Even if there’s a war the tech companies will be crucial, if Trump wins I can’t see that harming US tech either. I know these shares have already risen a lot but I see them rising further for quite a while
Am i wrong?
My approach is to choose a number of indexes. I moved to ii, which has a flat rate charge, about six months ago. Since then:
XNAQ (Nasdaq) is doing best up 9.9%, Fidelity Index World P is up 6.9%, VUSA (S&P 500) is up 6.7%, Vanguard FTSE All Share is up 3.3% My Vanguard Emerging Markets is down 1.9%.
For excitement and the long term I have some individual Tesla shares.
i've just put £X000 into Fidelity, weirdly enough!
My idea is to do this over a week or so, choose one investment a day
I've just read a debate between some economists/tech barons who were arguing whether AI was as transformative as electricity, or fire; they all agreed it would impact surprisingly fast
When something is gonna be that profound, that's where investment should go (albeit in a balanced portfolio etc etc)
Sadly, Europe lags in the AI race, despite some decent companies in France and the UK. China is too opaque and debatable. That leaves America, it's the only game in town. The AI revolution might well be a mare for the average American worker, but I am FAIRLY sure corporate America will prosper, esp the tech giants, natch
The latest BBC push notification is disastrous for the government:
"The suspect in an alkali attack in south London was convicted of a sex offence in 2018 and was later granted asylum"
That’s appalling. How on earth can you be granted asylum if you’ve been convicted of an offence.
Where in the law does it say the right to asylum doesn't apply to criminals?
The arsehole should have been on the next flight out. We have enough of our own criminals without importing more. Any immigrant/ supposed asylum seeker committing crimes shoudl be deported immediately. It is wishy washy liberal cry babies like you that have allowed the country to go down the drain.
Just saw the attack occured a few hundred metres where I used to live. Down a road we'd park our car. Scary.
As a liberal, I agree regarding the deportation of criminal asylum seekers.
Though we would have to improve relationships with the Taliban if we want to deport Afghan asylum seekers
I consider myself a liberal but I agree with Ratters. If a convicted criminal can't or won't go back home then detain them indefinitely until they change their mind or a better solution can be found.
It's the Home Office's own rules.
A conviction with a sentence of less than a year doesn't preclude an asylum claim (he was given a suspended sentence). Their criteria need another look (it was two years at the time of his conviction).
There should arguably be a blanket ban on all those convicted of sex offences, or violent crime, irrespective of sentence.
I spoke to a woman yesterday who is at her wits end: Her husband works full-time in a low-pay job, she has been does not work but looks after their four children, all under 10.
They privately rent a 3-bed house and have just been told by the letting agent that their rent is going up by 41% (!) in March. Reason? - BTL "owner's mortgage has gone up". There's nothing else locally they can move to for any less rent (there are hardly any 3-bed homes for rent locally). They are on the council housing register but would need to become actually homeless to stand any chance of getting anything, then it could be B&B for a long-stretch.
They receive UC support which was covering their rent but that's capped by the Local Housing Allowance at about 75% of their new rent. They were already struggling on the old rent and regularly borrowing from family mid-month, paying back when they got paid... and repeat. Rent, Council Tax, Electricity, Gas, Food, Transport - this is where all their money goes.
What kind of messed-up country have we become where:
1) Taxpayers have to subsidise a traditional working family to live? 2) Those subsidies are set based on 'local rent levels' which are way below any actual comparable local rents?
We are seeing this every week now: working families, both tenants and mortgaged homeowners, who have hit the point where they just cannot make sums add up.
Anyone who thinks we're about to hit a feel-good period is a bit deluded imo.
We need a huge increase in housebuilding and a big hike in the minimum wage - why the f*ck are taxpayers subsidising low-pay employers and BTL landlords?
Ultimately, no social model will turn one low salary into a comfortable standard of living for six humans.
That's kinda what I was thinking. Basically is someone on minimum wage with a non working wife really expecting to have enough money for 4 kids? What they are unhappy about is that we are not subsidising them sufficiently to give them the standard of living they think they are entitled to. Well, actually, they aren't.
Partially yes, but partially no.
If housing cost the same as it used to in the past, then household budgets would be a lot more relieved without giving them any further subsidies.
It is the draconian cost of housing that eats up too much of too many people's budgets.
Sure, if you want housing to be the same as it was in the past. Outside privies. Two families in a house, No gardens. Garage? You're having a laugh. The heating is the downstairs fireplace.
If you want 'better' housing, it'll cost more. every regulation we add onto housing legislation improves housing, but increases cost.
I don't know what the answer is.
That's absurd and illogical thinking.
Quality improves over time without increasing cost. TVs, computers and much more cost a tiny fraction (in real terms) of what they did, while being much better quality. Its not just technology, food nowadays costs a quarter of what it did in the seventies, while improving tremendously in the availability of variety and quality (even if some people choose crap).
Housing isn't expensive due to build costs, housing is expensive due to the artificially high cost of land and the lack of competition due to the planning system. Prior to the introduction of the requirement of planning consent, land was just 2% of the cost of a house - go back to that, and the cost of housing would plummet and people would be able to afford a better standard of living without any extra income.
It is those trying to sweat the value of land to earn an income who are causing misery. That unearned income has to come from somewhere.
I think you're wrong. The things you mention improved performance and simultaneously decreased cost due to the *quantity* being sold. Back in the early 1980s, the government started a scheme that said we would have a computer in every school. That is *one computer in every school of a few hundred pupils. That made the fortunes (temporarily) of a computer company. Now most people carry one or two computers around with them all the time (in my case, phone and watch).
We are talking orders of magnitude increases in production. 230 billion ARM chips have been made in the last forty years, and that sort of volume increases quality/performance and reduces cost. Housing is in no way scalable in the same manner.
Housing absolutely is scalable, indeed its been done around the globe.
Contrast the value of land with planning consent with the value without it. That delta is purely artificial and entirely due to the planning system, abolish it and you abolish that delta, you abolish that cost altogether.
Housing is not scalable in the same way, and it's ridiculous to say it is. As I said, *billions* of ARM chips alone have been sold. 25 billion in 2020 alone. Comparing housing to that is... odd, for obvious reasons.
I never said scalable in the same way, nor does it need to be, it just needs to be scalable and it is.
As I gave as an initial example, food has come down by 75% in cost since the 70s, that's not scaled like ARM has.
Housing costs never used to be this expensive either, land never used to be this expensive, they are expensive solely because its scaled less than population has. If it scaled more than population does, then prices would collapse in real terms, which would be great news for all except those trying to sweat land for unearned wealth and income.
It's nowhere near scalable enough, especially as the *quality* of what we rightly want increases. we want *better* housing, and that invariably costs more. Better insulation? it costs. Electric car chargers outside every new house? They cost.
Usable land is finite; we rightly want better quality housing on the land. The 'quality' of the food has not increased massively since the 1970s; the places we are buying it from worldwide may have.
I agree that planning is an issue; I just see that there are many other barriers to 'affordable' housing. Changing demographics, immigration, desires, legislation... they are all factors. And good luck in changing most of them. There's no way I'd touch a timber-framed mass-produced house, for instance, after the disasters in the 1980s.
It is scalable. How do you provide more housing and services with less land, fewer building materials, more efficient transport options and lower running costs?
Flats.
Yes slums are scalable cheaply, but deal with the way the planning system warps competition and inflates the value of land and real actual homes can be built for cheaper instead.
Stop this obsession of cramming people into slum flats instead of actual houses.
But, as a sharp thinker here has pointed out, that has naff all to to with the cost of those flats, it's pure supply and demand.
Copy and paste the street plans of desirable old suburbs. The places that price signals show that people want to live in.
Make the exteriors appealing (which probably means Georgian Pastiche), give the innards modern standards of insulation and utilities. Then denser living is popular and it's easy for private enterprise to provide all the other stuff that makes life pleasant.
The inability to construct more is precisely the supply problem, yes.
Nationwide the price signals that people prefer detached homes, then semi-detached homes, with terraces being the least preferable houses of all. And flats even less popular than terraces.
The idea that denser living is popular is not remotely based on any facts or evidence. Inner-city living may be popular for some, but in like-for-like areas people will prefer more space for themselves without others.
You have never seen Georgian terraces I presume.
It's a bizarre line of argument. No one disagrees that most people want to live in a large detached house with a lovely garden, home cinema, Aston Martin in the garage.
But wanting is not getting. We live in the real world, with restrictions on resources, space, time, distance. Perfect is the enemy of good.
My hard work out here in the east is making me money. I have sums to invest
But where? My sense is that the AI/tech boom has a long way to go yet, and that it’s hard to go wrong with the Magnificent Seven - Google, Amazon, Nvidia, MS, etc
Even if there’s a war the tech companies will be crucial, if Trump wins I can’t see that harming US tech either. I know these shares have already risen a lot but I see them rising further for quite a while
Am i wrong?
My approach is to choose a number of indexes. I moved to ii, which has a flat rate charge, about six months ago. Since then:
XNAQ (Nasdaq) is doing best up 9.9%, Fidelity Index World P is up 6.9%, VUSA (S&P 500) is up 6.7%, Vanguard FTSE All Share is up 3.3% My Vanguard Emerging Markets is down 1.9%.
For excitement and the long term I have some individual Tesla shares.
i've just put £X000 into Fidelity, weirdly enough!
My idea is to do this over a week or so, choose one investment a day
Had Starmer had his way, we would probably have lower immigration now.
We lost many thousands in critical services and service sectors back to the EU after Brexit, and the tories have incompetently had to make up the numbers. That has been a key driver of the much higher figures this year.
The maths likely means that total net migration will drop in the next couple of years, because this year was boosted by there being fewer new overseas students in 2020 who would have been due to leave in 2023. Plus the Ukraine and Hong Kong arrivals.
Labour may well be presiding over net numbers around half of 2023 without actually doing anything.
It doesn't matter. The public thinks that net migration is around 100,000 or fewer
When they realise it is four or seven times that, as is slowly beginning to happen, and will probably kick in next year under Labour, watch out
And Labour saying "well, we've got it just under half a million a year" isn't going to cut it
SFA to do with asylum. Largely due to the need to have working people to prop up the economy because so many late middle aged people have decided that they have made enough personally and don't want to work as much, or at all.
A key part of Rishi Sunak’s effort to stop the boats has collapsed after Home Office officials declared that Turkey was not a safe country to send migrants back to because of human rights concerns.
Ministers hoped to set up a migrant returns deal with Ankara after a surge in the number of Turkish people arriving illegally in Britain by small boat.
Three thousand Turkish nationals arrived that way last year, making them the third largest nationality to do so and representing a 162 per cent increase from the year before.
The deal would have mirrored an accord with Albania which has significantly cut the number of its citizens entering the UK in this way.
An internal Home Office review described Turkey as “a state that does not meet the criteria of being ‘generally safe’”.
It said that previous analysis of Turkish cases and anecdotal evidence had found 99 per cent of Turkish asylum cases in the UK were based on a fear of the state.
The majority were “political” opponents of the regime due to their actual or perceived involvement in opposition movements, including the Peoples’ Democratic Party, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party and the Gulen movement.
The assessment criticised Turkey’s “over-zealous” application of anti-terrorism laws and raised concerns over the independence of the judiciary and the provision of fair trials, particularly in “political” cases.
There are allegations of torture and ill-treatment in police custody and prison.
Notably, the assessment also raises concerns over Turkey’s compliance with adverse rulings from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which the Home Office assessment said “raised questions about adherence to the rule of law”.
This is significant given Sunak’s plans not to comply with interim injunctions from the same court.
His Rwanda bill will give ministers the power to ignore these so-called Rule 39 orders despite the president of the ECHR saying last month that this would be a breach of international law.
The Turkish example is a good example of why our current asylum system is simply unsustainable. There are dozens of absolute shit holes in the world with appalling views on gays, women, Christians, minorities along with huge propensities towards violence to assert their control. More than a billion people live in such places, a lot more if you look too carefully at China.
The idea that all of them have the right to seek asylum in this country is well meaning, compassionate and nuts. It is simply unsustainable. We need to move from a rights based system to a compassionate one that allows us the right to choose. So, we might choose Ukrainians or Hong Kong Chinese, for example. But we are unlikely to choose those from religions whose central tenants we find incompatible with our own beliefs. And we must reclaim the right to say no. I believe that this is inevitable and I would rather we did not elect a quasi fascist government to achieve it.
Withdrawing from the UN Convention on Refugees would be required, but seems not to have any real sanction. Indeed it seems no country has had any enforcement action for not following the rules while in membership.
It seems taking any refugees is voluntary.
It is not "voluntary" for us because we are a country that takes the rule of law very seriously, and that is of course something to be proud of. The price of withdrawing the UNCR would be so high I would not commend this country doing it unilaterally. We need to build an international consensus about it. As this century progresses and the numbers from Africa explode I do not think that will be too hard.
I sense that the immigration/asylum issue is going to destroy Starmer in his first term
Every fibre in his Woke body - and all his acolytes, MPs and activists - will want to let in more asylum seekers and more immigrants in general. All of Britain will want the opposite
It will be the most tremendous clash
Contrast that with Sunak's success with the Rwanda scheme.
The Tories are dismally pathetic. They deserve the electoral drubbing coming their way
But then we will all move on, and it will be Labour trying to deal with this enormously corrosive and explosive issue. I see absolutely no ideas from the, on how to do it, indeed I see the opposite, a desire to hide away from it, bollocks about "being nicer to France", like that will solve it. Simply ludicrous
This will get found out very soon and then it will be Labour's turn to face the voters' wrath, and it could come really quickly, as Labour are even MORE pathetic, at their core
Let’s be even more confrontational with Europe. It’s what “all of Britain” wants. More aggro with the neighbours. Let’s elect a strongman to sort things out and be really really tough with anyone who is not with “all of Britain”. After all, who knows “all of Britain” better than a North London member of the chattering classes who spends most of his time abroad?
Tell me, how is Labour going to tackle the small boats problem, other than ignoring it and pretending that being nice about croissants will charm the French into stopping them?
Do tell. We are all ears. Your lot will be in power by the end of the year, with this at the top of the To Do list
“Your lot”? Of course. You are the vox populi. You speak for “all of Britain”. Anyone who disagrees is the “other”. While I’ll probably vote for them this time, I’m not even a regular Labour voter, let alone a member or activist, you absolute complete moron. Anyone who doesn’t take your side in the culture war is a traitor to Britain and part of the other against “all of Britain”.
Where have the intelligent posters on here gone? We’re reduced to your low IQ rantings. Your solution “tow them back” is so simplistically risible (dump them on the beach at Boulogne? How does the towing boat get close enough if the French object? We going to invade? Shoot our way ashore? How will it stop people trying?) that a child could point out the flaws. Let’s try it. I’m sure it would surprise on the upside.
I don’t have a simple solution like yours because there isn’t one. Ideally I’d like to remove the factors that mean so many, innocent and criminal alike, want to migrate. That isn’t going to happen.
This is why politicians should never insult 25% of voters. You end up with horrible situations like this.
Its perfectly fine to insult 25% of voters, if you can appeal to 75%.
Trump is offensive to more than 25% of voters too.
It is not “perfectly fine” to insult anyone, let alone 25% of voters
There is a difference between “could” and “should” which you fail to understand
Calling half of the electorate Deplorables didn’t end well for Mrs Clinton.
You have a go at your opponent, you don’t, ever, have a go at the people who might vote for them.
No, failing to campaign properly and flying over the "flyover states" to spend most of her time on the coasts which weren't even in play didn't work well for Clinton.
Trump has insulted far more voters, far more regularly, than Clinton ever did. In rather deranged BLOCK CAPS RANTS about LIBERALS and others most of the time.
He regularly insults quite a few of those who say they'll vote for him, if they are insufficiently subservient. 'Little Marco'; 'Birdbrain' etc.
It's part of Trump's brand - it annoys some voters, and it works for others. "He tells it like it is" "he stands up to the elite" bla bla bla. Clinton saying half of Trump's supporters are a basket of deplorables supports the branding of her as part of the elite, someone who looks down her nose at ordinary people, and I can't see any positive side to it for her.
I said on here that it was daft the day she said it. Looking at the company he's kept since, it's not a lie, though.
Yes, just speculating on why Clinton calling half of Trump's supporters deplorables might be terrible politics, while Trump insulting all kinds of people doesn't seem to lose him much support (net). There's also an element of sexism probably.
None of you begin to understand what is going on. Have you been to America? Talked to Trump voters? They aren't all shit-eating rednecks with three teeth and a banjo
Trump voters are, in general, desperate. They think they are losing America, the America they know: largely white, powerful, peaceful (in its own way), largely Christian, tolerant of diversity, but not shoving it down your throat
You can deplore those opinions but they aren't necessarily insane. So, as they are desperate, Trump voters have nowhere else to go. Therefore they are willing to vote for a lunatic like Trump. as they sense he might, just might, reverse a tide which has been flowing the other way for decades, BECAUSE he is an offensive and aggressive oaf, whereas everyone else is spineless
Meanwhile, the left has many options. They sense they are winning the culture wars (and they are right). Wokeness prevails. DEI is everywhere. They can loftily abstain and talk about Bernie Sanders. 3m immigrants are illegally crossing into America, annually, they are potential future Democrat voters. And so on
So your argument is they're not deplorable, they're just white supremacists?
I can see why you think those two things are different.
Ethnocentric, rather than supremacist. They don't want to lord it over anyone, but, yeah, they prefer a white majority America
Most humans - of any race - are ethnocentric, they prefer their own kind. Denying this is futile
What bollocks.
Normal people don't care what colour skin someone has. They may reasonably object to unsustainable levels of migration or people who fail to integrate into society, but I've not met anyone in my life who would give a shit if their next door neighbours were third generation Indian/Chinese/Nigerian etc.
Masters of the Air ep3 out this morning; terrifying stuff.
I heard they had over a thousand people working on research, and the missions are depicted with as much accuracy as records allow: the aerial photography is the actual locations, how and when each plane gets hit is recreated as it actually happened.
This is why politicians should never insult 25% of voters. You end up with horrible situations like this.
Its perfectly fine to insult 25% of voters, if you can appeal to 75%.
Trump is offensive to more than 25% of voters too.
It is not “perfectly fine” to insult anyone, let alone 25% of voters
There is a difference between “could” and “should” which you fail to understand
Calling half of the electorate Deplorables didn’t end well for Mrs Clinton.
You have a go at your opponent, you don’t, ever, have a go at the people who might vote for them.
No, failing to campaign properly and flying over the "flyover states" to spend most of her time on the coasts which weren't even in play didn't work well for Clinton.
Trump has insulted far more voters, far more regularly, than Clinton ever did. In rather deranged BLOCK CAPS RANTS about LIBERALS and others most of the time.
He regularly insults quite a few of those who say they'll vote for him, if they are insufficiently subservient. 'Little Marco'; 'Birdbrain' etc.
It's part of Trump's brand - it annoys some voters, and it works for others. "He tells it like it is" "he stands up to the elite" bla bla bla. Clinton saying half of Trump's supporters are a basket of deplorables supports the branding of her as part of the elite, someone who looks down her nose at ordinary people, and I can't see any positive side to it for her.
I said on here that it was daft the day she said it. Looking at the company he's kept since, it's not a lie, though.
Yes, just speculating on why Clinton calling half of Trump's supporters deplorables might be terrible politics, while Trump insulting all kinds of people doesn't seem to lose him much support (net). There's also an element of sexism probably.
None of you begin to understand what is going on. Have you been to America? Talked to Trump voters? They aren't all shit-eating rednecks with three teeth and a banjo
Trump voters are, in general, desperate. They think they are losing America, the America they know: largely white, powerful, peaceful (in its own way), largely Christian, tolerant of diversity, but not shoving it down your throat
You can deplore those opinions but they aren't necessarily insane. So, as they are desperate, Trump voters have nowhere else to go. Therefore they are willing to vote for a lunatic like Trump. as they sense he might, just might, reverse a tide which has been flowing the other way for decades, BECAUSE he is an offensive and aggressive oaf, whereas everyone else is spineless
Meanwhile, the left has many options. They sense they are winning the culture wars (and they are right). Wokeness prevails. DEI is everywhere. They can loftily abstain and talk about Bernie Sanders. 3m immigrants are illegally crossing into America, annually, they are potential future Democrat voters. And so on
So your argument is they're not deplorable, they're just white supremacists?
I can see why you think those two things are different.
Ethnocentric, rather than supremacist. They don't want to lord it over anyone, but, yeah, they prefer a white majority America
Most humans - of any race - are ethnocentric, they prefer their own kind. Denying this is futile
Ethnocentric is a cute way of saying "racist".
If you're not an ignorant racist shiteater then "their own kind" has nothing to do with race.
Many rightwing white Tories will find Patel, Badenoch and Sunak more "their own kind" than Corbyn, Raynor and Long-Bailey.
When watching The Ashes I find Moeen Ali to be more "my own kind" than Steve Smith.
Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."
While Wales is rightly trying to reduce number of second homes and empty homes - it got things very wrong with fire sprinklers. It adds £500-1000 to cost of new builds and I believe there is not a single example of them being used succesfully - because house fires usually occur in old homes.... This is a stupid piece of legislation that should be scrapped.
I can understand in flats but surely they're not required in houses ?
Yes they are. All new builds in Wales must have them. I don't have an exact figure for the cost of the installation at my parent's new house, but I think it was a lot more than £1k, probably more like £3-4k if you actually costed it out separately (there's quite a lot of physical kit installed).
This is why politicians should never insult 25% of voters. You end up with horrible situations like this.
Its perfectly fine to insult 25% of voters, if you can appeal to 75%.
Trump is offensive to more than 25% of voters too.
It is not “perfectly fine” to insult anyone, let alone 25% of voters
There is a difference between “could” and “should” which you fail to understand
Calling half of the electorate Deplorables didn’t end well for Mrs Clinton.
You have a go at your opponent, you don’t, ever, have a go at the people who might vote for them.
No, failing to campaign properly and flying over the "flyover states" to spend most of her time on the coasts which weren't even in play didn't work well for Clinton.
Trump has insulted far more voters, far more regularly, than Clinton ever did. In rather deranged BLOCK CAPS RANTS about LIBERALS and others most of the time.
He regularly insults quite a few of those who say they'll vote for him, if they are insufficiently subservient. 'Little Marco'; 'Birdbrain' etc.
It's part of Trump's brand - it annoys some voters, and it works for others. "He tells it like it is" "he stands up to the elite" bla bla bla. Clinton saying half of Trump's supporters are a basket of deplorables supports the branding of her as part of the elite, someone who looks down her nose at ordinary people, and I can't see any positive side to it for her.
I said on here that it was daft the day she said it. Looking at the company he's kept since, it's not a lie, though.
Yes, just speculating on why Clinton calling half of Trump's supporters deplorables might be terrible politics, while Trump insulting all kinds of people doesn't seem to lose him much support (net). There's also an element of sexism probably.
None of you begin to understand what is going on. Have you been to America? Talked to Trump voters? They aren't all shit-eating rednecks with three teeth and a banjo
Trump voters are, in general, desperate. They think they are losing America, the America they know: largely white, powerful, peaceful (in its own way), largely Christian, tolerant of diversity, but not shoving it down your throat
You can deplore those opinions but they aren't necessarily insane. So, as they are desperate, Trump voters have nowhere else to go. Therefore they are willing to vote for a lunatic like Trump. as they sense he might, just might, reverse a tide which has been flowing the other way for decades, BECAUSE he is an offensive and aggressive oaf, whereas everyone else is spineless
Meanwhile, the left has many options. They sense they are winning the culture wars (and they are right). Wokeness prevails. DEI is everywhere. They can loftily abstain and talk about Bernie Sanders. 3m immigrants are illegally crossing into America, annually, they are potential future Democrat voters. And so on
So your argument is they're not deplorable, they're just white supremacists?
I can see why you think those two things are different.
Ethnocentric, rather than supremacist. They don't want to lord it over anyone, but, yeah, they prefer a white majority America
Most humans - of any race - are ethnocentric, they prefer their own kind. Denying this is futile
Ethnocentric is a cute way of saying "racist".
If you're not an ignorant racist shiteater then "their own kind" has nothing to do with race.
Many rightwing white Tories will find Patel, Badenoch and Sunak more "their own kind" than Corbyn, Raynor and Long-Bailey.
When watching The Ashes I find Moeen Ali to be more "my own kind" than Steve Smith.
Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."
This is why politicians should never insult 25% of voters. You end up with horrible situations like this.
Its perfectly fine to insult 25% of voters, if you can appeal to 75%.
Trump is offensive to more than 25% of voters too.
It is not “perfectly fine” to insult anyone, let alone 25% of voters
There is a difference between “could” and “should” which you fail to understand
Calling half of the electorate Deplorables didn’t end well for Mrs Clinton.
You have a go at your opponent, you don’t, ever, have a go at the people who might vote for them.
No, failing to campaign properly and flying over the "flyover states" to spend most of her time on the coasts which weren't even in play didn't work well for Clinton.
Trump has insulted far more voters, far more regularly, than Clinton ever did. In rather deranged BLOCK CAPS RANTS about LIBERALS and others most of the time.
He regularly insults quite a few of those who say they'll vote for him, if they are insufficiently subservient. 'Little Marco'; 'Birdbrain' etc.
It's part of Trump's brand - it annoys some voters, and it works for others. "He tells it like it is" "he stands up to the elite" bla bla bla. Clinton saying half of Trump's supporters are a basket of deplorables supports the branding of her as part of the elite, someone who looks down her nose at ordinary people, and I can't see any positive side to it for her.
I said on here that it was daft the day she said it. Looking at the company he's kept since, it's not a lie, though.
Yes, just speculating on why Clinton calling half of Trump's supporters deplorables might be terrible politics, while Trump insulting all kinds of people doesn't seem to lose him much support (net). There's also an element of sexism probably.
None of you begin to understand what is going on. Have you been to America? Talked to Trump voters? They aren't all shit-eating rednecks with three teeth and a banjo
Trump voters are, in general, desperate. They think they are losing America, the America they know: largely white, powerful, peaceful (in its own way), largely Christian, tolerant of diversity, but not shoving it down your throat
You can deplore those opinions but they aren't necessarily insane. So, as they are desperate, Trump voters have nowhere else to go. Therefore they are willing to vote for a lunatic like Trump. as they sense he might, just might, reverse a tide which has been flowing the other way for decades, BECAUSE he is an offensive and aggressive oaf, whereas everyone else is spineless
Meanwhile, the left has many options. They sense they are winning the culture wars (and they are right). Wokeness prevails. DEI is everywhere. They can loftily abstain and talk about Bernie Sanders. 3m immigrants are illegally crossing into America, annually, they are potential future Democrat voters. And so on
So your argument is they're not deplorable, they're just white supremacists?
I can see why you think those two things are different.
Ethnocentric, rather than supremacist. They don't want to lord it over anyone, but, yeah, they prefer a white majority America
Most humans - of any race - are ethnocentric, they prefer their own kind. Denying this is futile
Ethnocentric is a cute way of saying "racist".
If you're not an ignorant racist shiteater then "their own kind" has nothing to do with race.
Many rightwing white Tories will find Patel, Badenoch and Sunak more "their own kind" than Corbyn, Raynor and Long-Bailey.
When watching The Ashes I find Moeen Ali to be more "my own kind" than Steve Smith.
Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."
Though note Paul entirely ignored his "neither make nor female" bit, the old misogynist.
This is why politicians should never insult 25% of voters. You end up with horrible situations like this.
Its perfectly fine to insult 25% of voters, if you can appeal to 75%.
Trump is offensive to more than 25% of voters too.
It is not “perfectly fine” to insult anyone, let alone 25% of voters
There is a difference between “could” and “should” which you fail to understand
Calling half of the electorate Deplorables didn’t end well for Mrs Clinton.
You have a go at your opponent, you don’t, ever, have a go at the people who might vote for them.
No, failing to campaign properly and flying over the "flyover states" to spend most of her time on the coasts which weren't even in play didn't work well for Clinton.
Trump has insulted far more voters, far more regularly, than Clinton ever did. In rather deranged BLOCK CAPS RANTS about LIBERALS and others most of the time.
He regularly insults quite a few of those who say they'll vote for him, if they are insufficiently subservient. 'Little Marco'; 'Birdbrain' etc.
It's part of Trump's brand - it annoys some voters, and it works for others. "He tells it like it is" "he stands up to the elite" bla bla bla. Clinton saying half of Trump's supporters are a basket of deplorables supports the branding of her as part of the elite, someone who looks down her nose at ordinary people, and I can't see any positive side to it for her.
I said on here that it was daft the day she said it. Looking at the company he's kept since, it's not a lie, though.
Yes, just speculating on why Clinton calling half of Trump's supporters deplorables might be terrible politics, while Trump insulting all kinds of people doesn't seem to lose him much support (net). There's also an element of sexism probably.
None of you begin to understand what is going on. Have you been to America? Talked to Trump voters? They aren't all shit-eating rednecks with three teeth and a banjo
Trump voters are, in general, desperate. They think they are losing America, the America they know: largely white, powerful, peaceful (in its own way), largely Christian, tolerant of diversity, but not shoving it down your throat
You can deplore those opinions but they aren't necessarily insane. So, as they are desperate, Trump voters have nowhere else to go. Therefore they are willing to vote for a lunatic like Trump. as they sense he might, just might, reverse a tide which has been flowing the other way for decades, BECAUSE he is an offensive and aggressive oaf, whereas everyone else is spineless
Meanwhile, the left has many options. They sense they are winning the culture wars (and they are right). Wokeness prevails. DEI is everywhere. They can loftily abstain and talk about Bernie Sanders. 3m immigrants are illegally crossing into America, annually, they are potential future Democrat voters. And so on
So your argument is they're not deplorable, they're just white supremacists?
I can see why you think those two things are different.
Ethnocentric, rather than supremacist. They don't want to lord it over anyone, but, yeah, they prefer a white majority America
Most humans - of any race - are ethnocentric, they prefer their own kind. Denying this is futile
What bollocks.
Normal people don't care what colour skin someone has. They may reasonably object to unsustainable levels of migration or people who fail to integrate into society, but I've not met anyone in my life who would give a shit if their next door neighbours were third generation Indian/Chinese/Nigerian etc.
You are just projecting.
sigh
No, I'm not. Look at where people immigrate TO
They always prefer to immigrate to somewhere that has "people like them", and then they cluster with their own kind in cities. This is a human universal, it is a well known phenomenon, it's why you get suddenly African or Jamaican or Korean or Inuit neighborhoods, it's why British colonialists had their own quarters of town - ethnocentrism, preference for neighbours like yourself, it is a FACT
I mean, I know I decry the stupidity of PB quite a lot, but this level of discourse is fucking infantile, and it can't all be blamed on @DougSeal and @BartholomewRoberts dribbling away in the corner, as per, that's just what they do
Comments
One for you malc
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/united-kingdom/scotland/scottish-people-most-welcoming-on-planet/
only a turnip would argue with that
'Little Marco'; 'Birdbrain' etc.
Clinton saying half of Trump's supporters are a basket of deplorables supports the branding of her as part of the elite, someone who looks down her nose at ordinary people, and I can't see any positive side to it for her.
Demolish the asylum-industrial complex, with its parasitic lawyers and bleating liberals. Introduce a new category of "sanctuary seekers" or whatever, and make it much much tougher to qualify. No appeals, no 2nd or 3rd goes
This fucking demonic Afghan pervert failed twice, and kept changing his story, and eventually got in by pretending to be a Christian priest, FFS, who actually believes that? No one believes that. Now a woman and her child are mutilated for life, their faces melted
Scrap asylum; start towing back the boats to France; before we actually elect Hitler. Get the fuck on with it
It’s fine to “have a go” at your opponent.
“Insulting” them is a personal attack. It’s not opposing their policies.
A key part of Rishi Sunak’s effort to stop the boats has collapsed after Home Office officials declared that Turkey was not a safe country to send migrants back to because of human rights concerns.
Ministers hoped to set up a migrant returns deal with Ankara after a surge in the number of Turkish people arriving illegally in Britain by small boat.
Three thousand Turkish nationals arrived that way last year, making them the third largest nationality to do so and representing a 162 per cent increase from the year before.
The deal would have mirrored an accord with Albania which has significantly cut the number of its citizens entering the UK in this way.
An internal Home Office review described Turkey as “a state that does not meet the criteria of being ‘generally safe’”.
It said that previous analysis of Turkish cases and anecdotal evidence had found 99 per cent of Turkish asylum cases in the UK were based on a fear of the state.
The majority were “political” opponents of the regime due to their actual or perceived involvement in opposition movements, including the Peoples’ Democratic Party, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party and the Gulen movement.
The assessment criticised Turkey’s “over-zealous” application of anti-terrorism laws and raised concerns over the independence of the judiciary and the provision of fair trials, particularly in “political” cases.
There are allegations of torture and ill-treatment in police custody and prison.
Notably, the assessment also raises concerns over Turkey’s compliance with adverse rulings from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which the Home Office assessment said “raised questions about adherence to the rule of law”.
This is significant given Sunak’s plans not to comply with interim injunctions from the same court.
His Rwanda bill will give ministers the power to ignore these so-called Rule 39 orders despite the president of the ECHR saying last month that this would be a breach of international law.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/blow-for-sunak-as-turkey-migrant-return-deal-collapses-x9fcjncvz
Looking at the company he's kept since, it's not a lie, though.
It's a fair point about hostage to fortune though. It could be there are better investments to be made.
A former minister who quit claiming that his salary would not cover his mortgage has set his sights on a new role fronting TV documentaries.
George Freeman has told colleagues that he wants to showcase pioneering scientific projects covering the oceans, space and subatomic advances in life sciences.
Friends suggested that he could be “the next Michael Portillo”, alluding to another former Tory minister who found a post-politics career in broadcasting with documentaries about trains.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/minister-who-couldnt-afford-his-mortgage-hopes-to-forge-a-tv-career-n0wpq3007
But you should not.
There is never a time and a place for insults.
Walk away and de-escalate. Or strike back, hard. Insults escalate without resolving matters. They achieve nothing.
Every fibre in his Woke body - and all his acolytes, MPs and activists - will want to let in more asylum seekers and more immigrants in general. All of Britain will want the opposite
It will be the most tremendous clash
No 10 angers Alan Bates with claim he was offered ‘fair’ Horizon compensation
Former sub-postmaster asks Government to ‘stop arguing with me’ and pay victims of Post Office scandal the money they deserve
Downing Street has come under fire over its compensation for Post Office Horizon scandal victims after it insisted Alan Bates was offered a “fair” deal.
Mr Bates, a former sub-postmaster who has fought a two-decade battle for justice, has said he will turn down a “cruel” and “derisory” payout offer that he claims was only around a sixth of the sum that he requested.
The Telegraph understands Kemi Badenoch, the Business Secretary, was saddened to hear his comments and called a meeting with Kevin Hollinrake, the postal minister, to look into the matter further.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/01/horizon-scandal-no-10-angers-alan-bates-offered-fair-deal/
I blame lawyers trying to eek out more fees.
She couldn't organise a pregnancy on a council estate.
Trump voters are, in general, desperate. They think they are losing America, the America they know: largely white, powerful, peaceful (in its own way), largely Christian, tolerant of diversity, but not shoving it down your throat
You can deplore those opinions but they aren't necessarily insane. So, as they are desperate, Trump voters have nowhere else to go. Therefore they are willing to vote for a lunatic like Trump. as they sense he might, just might, reverse a tide which has been flowing the other way for decades, BECAUSE he is an offensive and aggressive oaf, whereas everyone else is spineless
Meanwhile, the left has many options. They sense they are winning the culture wars (and they are right). Wokeness prevails. DEI is everywhere. They can loftily abstain and talk about Bernie Sanders. 3m immigrants are illegally crossing into America, annually, they are potential future Democrat voters. And so on
But then we will all move on, and it will be Labour trying to deal with this enormously corrosive and explosive issue. I see absolutely no ideas from them, on how to do it, indeed I see the opposite, a desire to hide away from it, bollocks about "being nicer to France", like that will solve it. Simply ludicrous
This will get found out very soon and then it will be Labour's turn to face the voters' wrath, and it could come really quickly, as Labour are even MORE pathetic, at their core
We lost many thousands in critical services and service sectors back to the EU after Brexit, and the tories have incompetently had to make up the numbers. That has been a key driver of the much higher figures this year.
The GOP are mad!
Do tell. We are all ears. Your lot will be in power by the end of the year, with this at the top of the To Do list
The UK is part of the world. If we unilaterally withdraw from international treaties then thats our ability to trade gone with it. You can't trust Britain if it rips up agreements.
If we "simply" shut the border, or go further and actively try to send the foreign invaders home, what then? Our economy needs migrant labour in all of the jobs that Brits are too stupid / lazy / far away to do.
If we want a program to educate people to become doctors, or pay enough for elderly care that homes can employ locals now happy to clean up someone else's mother's piss for the living wage, or work in hospitality, or in factories where the jobs pay £ but the housing costs £££, then we need to do that first.
Wanting to create jobs for natives is not a problem. But the "send them home" people also don't want to spend money paying workers or training doctors or building new towns in the fens to house workers. For them, "send them home" is the end game.
Great! So we do. What happens now? We're fucked, that's what happens. There are a few million people out there viscerally angry, having been whipped into a rage by a right wing wanting to exploit their ignorance and stupidity. @Leon foams on about them and what they could do.
Sure! But on this issue They Are Wrong. We cannot do any of the simple solutions or we'd be fucked. The world doesn't operate at simple. It largely isn't black and white, and the job of politicians is to nudge people away from simplistic non-solutions like Rwanda, not keep selling it to them.
XNAQ (Nasdaq) is doing best up 9.9%,
Fidelity Index World P is up 6.9%,
VUSA (S&P 500) is up 6.7%,
Vanguard FTSE All Share is up 3.3%
My Vanguard Emerging Markets is down 1.9%.
For excitement and the long term I have some individual Tesla shares.
Labour may well be presiding over net numbers around half of 2023 without actually doing anything.
It would be idiotic to change such a winning formula that is on course to deliver him the biggest Labour majority in our history.
"Let them all in"
It would have saved you time
When they realise it is four or seven times that, as is slowly beginning to happen, and will probably kick in next year under Labour, watch out
And Labour saying "well, we've got it just under half a million a year" isn't going to cut it
The idea that all of them have the right to seek asylum in this country is well meaning, compassionate and nuts. It is simply unsustainable. We need to move from a rights based system to a compassionate one that allows us the right to choose. So, we might choose Ukrainians or Hong Kong Chinese, for example. But we are unlikely to choose those from religions whose central tenants we find incompatible with our own beliefs. And we must reclaim the right to say no. I believe that this is inevitable and I would rather we did not elect a quasi fascist government to achieve it.
As a liberal, I agree regarding the deportation of criminal asylum seekers.
Tony Blair inherited a 28% lead when he became leader.
My idea is to do this over a week or so, choose one investment a day
I can see why you think those two things are different.
Actually we know, as several Senators and House members - with Trump's open encouragement - have said they don't want to 'give him a win' before the election.
That's how urgent the issue is to them.
Most humans - of any race - are ethnocentric, they prefer their own kind. Denying this is futile
Let's see how they do, since I can't tell you either.
Base politicking, but the Dems are just as bad, if not worse
DeSantis wouldn't.
Haley might well.
Labour have also spent much of the last month setting out very clear policy positions on business, taxation and regulation. Much clearer than any on the mush coming out of Sunak’s government. At work we have a live table tracking fiscal policies of the 3 main parties. The Labour tab is twice as long as the government one. The “they don’t have any policies” thing is a brand issue rather than based on an objective assessment of policies.
It would have been fun to hear him choke on his cornflakes.
I would be the last to claim the Biden administration is perfect, but I'd judge it well above average.
Also, cornflakes???? PFFF
Some people don't have the intelligence to know they are being gaslit. You do. So why parrot moron non-solutions?
Moderately long term, then you might be better advised to average your investment over a longer period of time.
The U.S. tech market is arguably just as likely to be down 20% as it is to be up that much over the next couple of years.
I agree with the Trumpite diagnosis of America's problems, I simply couldn't ever vote for Donald Trump, as he is a dangerously unstable lunatic who could imperil the world
For someone who foams on half cut about x Derangement Syndrome I do have to laugh. Is yours Mirror Derangement Syndrome? As in don't have one? Listen to yourself. You come across as bonkers as Elon Musk. Without the immense wealth or talent. Just the ranty alt-right foaming.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/710680/global-stock-markets-by-country/
Labour currently have set out positions on business along the lines of we'll do what Sunak is doing. And since Sunak and Hunt are currently in government there isnt quite the need to say what they will do as they are doing it. Unfortunately. The only thing I can give Starmer credit for is his statement on housing - which I support. But I doubt he'll do anything about it.
Plus ca change.
Discuss, with reference to British politics and society between 2015 and 2024.
If you're not an ignorant racist shiteater then "their own kind" has nothing to do with race.
Many rightwing white Tories will find Patel, Badenoch and Sunak more "their own kind" than Corbyn, Raynor and Long-Bailey.
When watching The Ashes I find Moeen Ali to be more "my own kind" than Steve Smith.
It's just a stock line that means nothing but people trot out like it has substance.
It seems taking any refugees is voluntary.
disagrees is the “other”. While I’ll probably vote for them this time, I’m not even a regular Labour voter, let alone a member or activist, you absolute complete moron. Anyone who doesn’t take your side in the culture war is a traitor to Britain and part of the other against “all of Britain”.
Where have the intelligent posters on here gone? We’re reduced to your low IQ rantings. Your solution “tow them back” is so simplistically risible (dump them on the beach at Boulogne? How does the towing boat get close enough if the French object? We going to invade? Shoot our way ashore? How will it stop people trying?) that a child could point out the flaws. Let’s try it. I’m sure it would surprise on the upside.
I don’t have a simple solution like yours because there isn’t one. Ideally I’d like to remove the factors that mean so many, innocent and criminal alike, want to migrate. That isn’t going to happen.
I am interested in the idea that Labour has a lot of policies now because my perception, and I pay a lot more attention than most, is the opposite. Even the few specific commitments they have made they seem to want to retreat from, as we saw with the Green funding yesterday.
I have some sympathy. It is obvious they are going to inherit a directionless, chaotic mess from the current government and they are struggling to see what the priorities are and where to start. When you don't even know where the starting line is it is hardly surprising that someone as cautious as Starmer is reluctant to have fixed commitments.
Actually, the TV debates could be a disaster for... democracy if they both come across as bumbling, senile old gits.
(Though I actually think Biden is better than you give him credit for - his speech on Trump last month was pretty good imo.)
Rough numbers:
Piastri’s current salary $3m
Lewis’s current salary $50m
Mercedes offer to McLaren $30m cash
Mercedes salary offer to Piastri $10m
I reckon that a way gets found to make it happen, ZB is enough of a hard-nosed businessman to know that everyone has their price. Perhaps they could also throw in a loan deal for Andrea Antonelli, who’s a Mercedes young driver expected to do very well in F2 this season.
(Just answering your plea for an intelligent poster to participate.)
I've just read a debate between some economists/tech barons who were arguing whether AI was as transformative as electricity, or fire; they all agreed it would impact surprisingly fast
When something is gonna be that profound, that's where investment should go (albeit in a balanced portfolio etc etc)
Sadly, Europe lags in the AI race, despite some decent companies in France and the UK. China is too opaque and debatable. That leaves America, it's the only game in town. The AI revolution might well be a mare for the average American worker, but I am FAIRLY sure corporate America will prosper, esp the tech giants, natch
We shall see
A conviction with a sentence of less than a year doesn't preclude an asylum claim (he was given a suspended sentence).
Their criteria need another look (it was two years at the time of his conviction).
There should arguably be a blanket ban on all those convicted of sex offences, or violent crime, irrespective of sentence.
But wanting is not getting. We live in the real world, with restrictions on resources, space, time, distance. Perfect is the enemy of good.
I have 50% of my portfolio in UK listed shares, and 50% in funds investing outside the UK.
The Republicans are totally mad!
Normal people don't care what colour skin someone has. They may reasonably object to unsustainable levels of migration or people who fail to integrate into society, but I've not met anyone in my life who would give a shit if their next door neighbours were third generation Indian/Chinese/Nigerian etc.
You are just projecting.
I heard they had over a thousand people working on research, and the missions are depicted with as much accuracy as records allow: the aerial photography is the actual locations, how and when each plane gets hit is recreated as it actually happened.
No, I'm not. Look at where people immigrate TO
They always prefer to immigrate to somewhere that has "people like them", and then they cluster with their own kind in cities. This is a human universal, it is a well known phenomenon, it's why you get suddenly African or Jamaican or Korean or Inuit neighborhoods, it's why British colonialists had their own quarters of town - ethnocentrism, preference for neighbours like yourself, it is a FACT
I mean, I know I decry the stupidity of PB quite a lot, but this level of discourse is fucking infantile, and it can't all be blamed on @DougSeal and @BartholomewRoberts dribbling away in the corner, as per, that's just what they do
The rest of you have less excuse; shape up