Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Today’s front pages – politicalbetting.com

1234568»

Comments

  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,460

    kjh said:

    maxh said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    148grss said:

    Leon said:

    I’ll give PBers a second chance to contemplate it

    ‘A team led by mathematician Jan H. van de Beek at the University of Amsterdam estimates that the Dutch government spent approximately €17 billion per year on migration in the period between 1995 and 2019, meaning that more than one billion euros went to migration-related issues every month.

    The study digs deeper still: annual net costs of non-Western immigration amount to €17 billion and the annual net benefits of Western immigration total one billion euros. Distinguishing between Western and non-Western migration patterns, the study comes to a startling conclusion: if immigration remains at 2015-2019 levels, the annual budget burden will increase from €17 billion in 2016 to about €50 billion. This is an increase that the welfare state would most likely not survive.

    The Dutch findings are mirrored in a similar study conducted by the Danish Finance Ministry, which concludes that non-Western immigrants are most likely to remain lifelong recipients of public finances compared to their Western or native Danish peers. Meanwhile, the picture in Germany is not much different: about 45% of those who receive unemployment benefits are not German citizens, costing the taxpayers around €20 billion per year. Austria shows similar numbers, with almost 60% of recipients having a “migrant background”.

    Van de Beek sees parts of the problem in the structure of the welfare state… [snip - see the link],

    The emerging picture is a complex one that includes both cultural and economic factors, but the overall conclusion remains the same: the current conditions under which migration to Europe takes place are not sustainable and will bring the welfare systems ever closer to collapsing. The idea promoted by Folkerts-Landau and others turned out to be far too optimistic, and what makes matters worse is that politicians still refuse to face the facts.

    Placing one’s head in the sand is, unfortunately, not the same as actual policymaking. Europe has ignored these issues for too long, and voters will make their discontent heard at the voting booth’

    https://unherd.com/thepost/dutch-study-immigration-costs-state-e17-billion-per-year/

    So the only actual report I can find (other than pieces in right wing media about the report) are in Danish, and I can't find anything discussing the report in English other than right wingers hailing it as the evidence they've always needed that immigrants are bad actually. That's not to say it is wrong, just that as someone who doesn't speak Danish I can't verify the actual findings of the report outside of places like unherd, who are not a source I trust.

    I have found an OpenDemocracy article detailing essentially the argument I put forth yesterday - how if immigrants are a "drain" on an economy it is most likely the practices of the employers who abuse those workers and use them to under cut labour rights and labour costs, but I accept that could have nothing to do with what this report was exploring. If you have a link directly to the report in English, I'd be very interested to look at it, the methodology and such.

    https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/beyond-trafficking-and-slavery/the-danish-model-of-exploiting-migrant-workers/
    Mate, it's Dutch. lol

    Not a good start to your research

    Here's the report. In English

    https://demo-demo.nl/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Borderless_Welfare_State-2.pdf
    The comparison doesn't really work for a country whose average income is about 70% of that in the Netherlands.

    The percentage of those on benefit who are not UK citizens was around 16% in 2019 (I can't quickly find a more recent figure); and migrants are more likely to be in work that native born Brits.

    So whatever your feelings about the levels of immigration, the comparison with the Netherlands (assuming the capacity of your article) is anyway complete bunk.
    And there we have it. Britain is so violently different to Netherlands none of this applies. Of course

    That is, until a comparison with an eu country comes along of which you approve, then it totally applies

    Honestly, this level of argumentation is quite depressing
    You first said "BME" which I believe stands for "Black [and] Minority Ethnic".

    That was your error. You brought race into it. Many (most? who knows) black Britons have roots here that go back decades. But you fell into the trap (to put it kindly) of identifying people by their race, not their economic status.

    Plus how many times do I have to tell you. The UK simply does not want fewer immigrants.
    Because most new migrants into the UK, since Brexit, have been BME. St Paul’s has a major chunk of non UK born citizens. It will be incomers who desperately need a new dentist, not settled citizens of whatever ethnicity

    I was using logic and combining these facts. I understand you’d prefer to resort to irrationality and call me a Nazi or whatever. I really don’t give a fuck and THIS IS BECOMING QUITE TIRESOME
    OK SORRY PLEASE STAY WITH ME.

    Do you have no understanding of what you are unleashing when you look at a bunch of immigrants and categorise them as "BME". You instantly lump in every eg black Briton into the "other", undesirable category.

    Because you are using race to identify them. Not immigrants or asylum seekers but black people . You are saying, you literally said, "but the obvious black over-representation in that queue".

    Now as you are an old hand at the writing game I'll allow that your meaning was ever so sophisticated but if our Nige stood up and said "look at all the black people queuing outside the dentist, it's intolerable" many people might be reminded of the "send them back" mantra of the '70s, now, mightn't they.
    I am losing the will to care. It’s you that chose to misinterpret me, stop it, you twat. You’re smarter than this, or at least I presumed so

    I am close to quitting. I don’t expect you to care, why should you. But constant and deliberate misconstrual can test anyone. Earlier on, someone accused me of actually saying ‘let’s expel all Romanian dentists’ presumably because I hate Romanians? Why the fuck would I hate Romanians, or any foreigners, when I spend my life wandering the world enjoying foreign cultures, peoples, cuisines, opinions, lifestyles?

    Enough. If PB wants to become a tepid Woke thought-bubble then go right ahead, you are doing the exact right thing

    The deeper irony is that my original remark about that video of the queue - ‘this is quite a dystopian vision of Britain’ - or something like that - actually had nothing to do with migration, race, anything like that - it was actually a comment on the combination of people desperate for a dentist, in an ugly place, covered with graffiti, under a grey sky. It looks like a poor South American or old soviet city but with even worse weather

    It was only later I thought - hold on this might be an image capturing immigration pressure on public services

    And with that I shall finish my gin and tonic and go and watch griselda

    You have much to learn from casino about the art of the flounce.
    In fairness @leon has done some superb flounces in the past.
    Really? I think they've all been pathetic and predictable.

    Personally I would be glad to see the back of the self-obsessed, alt-right, closet racist, snowflake, conspiracy theorist.

    I say: flounce-off out of here and don't bother coming back.

    That at least is my nuanced opinion on the issue.
    I was literally about to go. Then this. Now I’m tempted to stay
  • HarperHarper Posts: 197

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    algarkirk said:

    148grss said:

    DavidL said:

    isam said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Starmer's remorseless pursuit of GE victory continues apace, as he dismantles step by step every potential attack line that can be pursued against him. Today it's the turn of the £28 billion sum for the Green Prosperity Plan.

    The mistake was, of course, putting a number on it back in 2021, at a time of low interest rates and when they had little idea what the state of the economy would be in 2024. Not sure why they did that - much better to establish the Green Prosperity Plan and GB Energy as policies, the financing of which would be revealed at the time of the GE.

    By the time of the GE, the Tories will only be left with two attack lines:
    1. This happily married father doesn't know what a woman is (I think he does), and
    2. Starmer keeps changing his mind in the light of new evidence.

    The tories will almost certainly run a negative campaign against Starmer because what else do they have? Nothing.

    However, for a negative campaign to work it has to resonate with something the voters already suspect or feel. Attacks portraying Starmer as a lying chancer are just going to bounce off his heavily shellacked hair
    It is the only attack they have, but it is based in truth; he is a liar and a chancer, and there’s loads of video evidence of him at it, so it could work. The main problem is, he’s so dull it’s hard to believe he is the complete snide he is
    2 incidents yesterday make me pause in that assessment. Firstly, the outrage on behalf of the mother of Brianna Ghey was instant and genuine. He may have developed it later into politics but he was genuinely appalled. Secondly, it was noted that at the end of PMQs he immediately went up to Elliot Cockburn, who had disclosed his attempted suicide, to lend him support and comfort.

    Just 2 straws in the wind but for the moment I am willing to accept that Starmer is a genuinely decent man who doesn't seem to have fixed views on much other than he should be PM. I certainly don't think of him as a complete snide.
    I think this is where people misunderstand Starmer. Starmer is a "respect for the office if not the person" guy - he was a lawyer and that is drummed into them. To Starmer the things that are wrong with the country are wrong because the Tories and Corbyn have, in his mind, brought them into disrepute. His job, then, is to make these things reputable again.

    One of the things that many trans people have noted about this recent kerfuffle is a) it seems that it's fine to say transphobic dogwhistles when a murdered transgirl isn't a big news story and b) that the framing is all about respect for Brianna's mother and not the dignity of transpeople themselves. That's because, in the British discourse, transpeople are free to be disrespected; grieving mothers are not. So when the two come together, some people miss the marker.

    We can see this with the political left and right all the time. Concerns about immigration are always "concerns of real people". Concerns about austerity are always "concerns of left wing activists". This isn't because cuts were popular - it's because people who are deemed "left wing" in the UK are not really respectable political actors. Similar for people who liked Corbyn/ism - they are not deserving of respect in the political arena, according to those within the political milieu, so you can lie to them as much as you want.

    Hence Starmer. He ran to be Labour leader by appealing to the centre, by being the sensible man in the suit, and the left, by saying he would do Corbynism but sensibly and in a way your grandma would support. The thing is only centrists and the media are people worth respecting, so as soon as he won he had to defer to their needs and desires and not to the left any more. Transpeople and their rights is a great example of this - before all this Starmer only ever interacted with the transphobic side of this struggle; Mumsnetters, his transphobic MPs, talking about getting rid of Gillick and agreeing with the school guidance recently released. Now, in front of a grieving mother, he tries to walk this back.

    I remember listening to a podcast that described Starmer as a neo-Confucianist. That his entire platform is if we bring back respect of the institutions and the correct symbols and trappings of tradition, that everything will fix itself outside of the material reality we're in. I think that sums him up perfectly.
    It's much simpler to understand Starmer thus: He is a perfectly decent man and has the protean qualities required in real politics. He campaigned to be leader in a manner to win the membership vote, and will campaign in the GE in a manner to win the general public vote. They are different. Losing both of these campaigns is much much easier than winning them. He has a very decent chance of winning both.

    He will govern in accordance with the laws of political reality, things which neither the Labour membership, nor many voters are good at analysing.

    Oh yes; respect for institutions, based on their actual excellence and merits, would be most welcome.
    What are the laws of political reality? Because what I see is a country that has been starved of public sector funding for a very long time atrophying as it's essential public services become worse and the price of everything gets higher. And all the policies that would address that, which are actually somewhat popular with voters, being jettisoned out of some idea of what centrism is.
    Political reality is that most people won't vote for tax rises, but they tend to be more willing to accept the argument that tax rises are necessary from a government already in office.

    Hence why none of the tax rises that have taken Britain to a record high tax take have followed a party campaigning on increasing taxes and winning an election on that platform.

    I dislike the essential dishonesty in that, but I recognise the political reality. I think that, eventually, there will be consequences from such political dishonesty, and perhaps Brexit was one of them.
    What? Most people are more than happy for there to be taxes on, like, the highest 10% of earners - because most people aren't in the top 10% of earners.
    You would think so, but the election records do not support that. Most people are not in the top 10%, but a lot of people want to be, and they don't want to be heavily taxed when they make it there.

    Now a political movement that sought to change political reality, rather than just confirm to it, would win the argument for the collective responsibility to pay for nice things. There have been a few glimpses over the years of the public's openness to that sort of argument - in the success of the "we're all in it together" political message, and the desire to pitch in and help out at the start of the pandemic - when HMG was inundated with volunteer offers.

    But no political movement has put in the hard work to reverse the success of the right-wing in convincing the public of the contrary message - that all public spending tends inevitably to massive waste and therefore taxation should be cut as much as possible to avoid that waste.

    So the present reality is where we are, and Starmer perhaps correctly recognises that the task is beyond his meagre political abilities.

    Edit: And it is, alas, sadly beyond my even more threadbare capabilities.
    I dont think a high tax welfare state is possible in a diverse society such as the UK. Diverse societies are inherently low trust.
  • Talking of integrity in politics, Ed Miliband has apparently announced he supports the ending of Labour and his flagship policy of 28 billion pa green spend (140 billion over 5 years) and will not be standing down
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,919
    isam said:

    AlsoLei said:

    FF43 said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Starmer's remorseless pursuit of GE victory continues apace, as he dismantles step by step every potential attack line that can be pursued against him. Today it's the turn of the £28 billion sum for the Green Prosperity Plan.

    The mistake was, of course, putting a number on it back in 2021, at a time of low interest rates and when they had little idea what the state of the economy would be in 2024. Not sure why they did that - much better to establish the Green Prosperity Plan and GB Energy as policies, the financing of which would be revealed at the time of the GE.

    By the time of the GE, the Tories will only be left with two attack lines:
    1. This happily married father doesn't know what a woman is (I think he does), and
    2. Starmer keeps changing his mind in the light of new evidence.

    The tories will almost certainly run a negative campaign against Starmer because what else do they have? Nothing.

    However, for a negative campaign to work it has to resonate with something the voters already suspect or feel. Attacks portraying Starmer as a lying chancer are just going to bounce off his heavily shellacked hair
    The Tories' problem is that Starmer's negatives, which are a thing, don't help them. They basically boil down to Starmer not being different enough from the current lot.
    Tory negatives will struggle to gain traction, they need to use humour and make him a laughing stock.
    Hard to see how they could do that, though.

    SKS is generally seen as dull, decent, serious, a bit worthy. There's not much mileage to be had in making fun of him for being dull or serious - it just invites comparison with Boris or Truss, and people will very reasonably think that they prefer dullness to chaos.

    So instead they're trying to make fun of him for being decent. I guess Sunak's "lol, trans" nonsense fits with that - but taunting a murdered girl's mother to her face is hardly very edifying. It's hard to see how they can push that much further than they have already.
    He didn’t taunt the dead person, he taunted Sir Keir for numerous U-turns including one which ended up with him saying that ‘99% of women don’t have a penis’.
    This is Savilegate redux.

    It wasn't Boris/Rishi's fault, it was Starmer's! Why, because he let Savile off the hook/ defended transgender people.

    I liked Sunak, but the more he enters campaigning mode the more of an unpleasant, disingenuous, othering oaf he appears.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891

    Got a VM from @Anabobazina :smile:

    "Afternoon gents. I hope you are all keeping well. I remain banned, for reasons unknown. Can one or more of you ask why on the forum? If it's merely a technical issue, can @TheScreamingEagles or @rcs1000 please release me from this purgatory."

    If you meet Stuart Dickson in purgatory can you guide him back? Why the site bans it's best posters is a mystery grasshopper
  • HarperHarper Posts: 197
    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    maxh said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    148grss said:

    Leon said:

    I’ll give PBers a second chance to contemplate it

    ‘A team led by mathematician Jan H. van de Beek at the University of Amsterdam estimates that the Dutch government spent approximately €17 billion per year on migration in the period between 1995 and 2019, meaning that more than one billion euros went to migration-related issues every month.

    The study digs deeper still: annual net costs of non-Western immigration amount to €17 billion and the annual net benefits of Western immigration total one billion euros. Distinguishing between Western and non-Western migration patterns, the study comes to a startling conclusion: if immigration remains at 2015-2019 levels, the annual budget burden will increase from €17 billion in 2016 to about €50 billion. This is an increase that the welfare state would most likely not survive.

    The Dutch findings are mirrored in a similar study conducted by the Danish Finance Ministry, which concludes that non-Western immigrants are most likely to remain lifelong recipients of public finances compared to their Western or native Danish peers. Meanwhile, the picture in Germany is not much different: about 45% of those who receive unemployment benefits are not German citizens, costing the taxpayers around €20 billion per year. Austria shows similar numbers, with almost 60% of recipients having a “migrant background”.

    Van de Beek sees parts of the problem in the structure of the welfare state… [snip - see the link],

    The emerging picture is a complex one that includes both cultural and economic factors, but the overall conclusion remains the same: the current conditions under which migration to Europe takes place are not sustainable and will bring the welfare systems ever closer to collapsing. The idea promoted by Folkerts-Landau and others turned out to be far too optimistic, and what makes matters worse is that politicians still refuse to face the facts.

    Placing one’s head in the sand is, unfortunately, not the same as actual policymaking. Europe has ignored these issues for too long, and voters will make their discontent heard at the voting booth’

    https://unherd.com/thepost/dutch-study-immigration-costs-state-e17-billion-per-year/

    So the only actual report I can find (other than pieces in right wing media about the report) are in Danish, and I can't find anything discussing the report in English other than right wingers hailing it as the evidence they've always needed that immigrants are bad actually. That's not to say it is wrong, just that as someone who doesn't speak Danish I can't verify the actual findings of the report outside of places like unherd, who are not a source I trust.

    I have found an OpenDemocracy article detailing essentially the argument I put forth yesterday - how if immigrants are a "drain" on an economy it is most likely the practices of the employers who abuse those workers and use them to under cut labour rights and labour costs, but I accept that could have nothing to do with what this report was exploring. If you have a link directly to the report in English, I'd be very interested to look at it, the methodology and such.

    https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/beyond-trafficking-and-slavery/the-danish-model-of-exploiting-migrant-workers/
    Mate, it's Dutch. lol

    Not a good start to your research

    Here's the report. In English

    https://demo-demo.nl/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Borderless_Welfare_State-2.pdf
    The comparison doesn't really work for a country whose average income is about 70% of that in the Netherlands.

    The percentage of those on benefit who are not UK citizens was around 16% in 2019 (I can't quickly find a more recent figure); and migrants are more likely to be in work that native born Brits.

    So whatever your feelings about the levels of immigration, the comparison with the Netherlands (assuming the capacity of your article) is anyway complete bunk.
    And there we have it. Britain is so violently different to Netherlands none of this applies. Of course

    That is, until a comparison with an eu country comes along of which you approve, then it totally applies

    Honestly, this level of argumentation is quite depressing
    You first said "BME" which I believe stands for "Black [and] Minority Ethnic".

    That was your error. You brought race into it. Many (most? who knows) black Britons have roots here that go back decades. But you fell into the trap (to put it kindly) of identifying people by their race, not their economic status.

    Plus how many times do I have to tell you. The UK simply does not want fewer immigrants.
    Because most new migrants into the UK, since Brexit, have been BME. St Paul’s has a major chunk of non UK born citizens. It will be incomers who desperately need a new dentist, not settled citizens of whatever ethnicity

    I was using logic and combining these facts. I understand you’d prefer to resort to irrationality and call me a Nazi or whatever. I really don’t give a fuck and THIS IS BECOMING QUITE TIRESOME
    OK SORRY PLEASE STAY WITH ME.

    Do you have no understanding of what you are unleashing when you look at a bunch of immigrants and categorise them as "BME". You instantly lump in every eg black Briton into the "other", undesirable category.

    Because you are using race to identify them. Not immigrants or asylum seekers but black people . You are saying, you literally said, "but the obvious black over-representation in that queue".

    Now as you are an old hand at the writing game I'll allow that your meaning was ever so sophisticated but if our Nige stood up and said "look at all the black people queuing outside the dentist, it's intolerable" many people might be reminded of the "send them back" mantra of the '70s, now, mightn't they.
    I am losing the will to care. It’s you that chose to misinterpret me, stop it, you twat. You’re smarter than this, or at least I presumed so

    I am close to quitting. I don’t expect you to care, why should you. But constant and deliberate misconstrual can test anyone. Earlier on, someone accused me of actually saying ‘let’s expel all Romanian dentists’ presumably because I hate Romanians? Why the fuck would I hate Romanians, or any foreigners, when I spend my life wandering the world enjoying foreign cultures, peoples, cuisines, opinions, lifestyles?

    Enough. If PB wants to become a tepid Woke thought-bubble then go right ahead, you are doing the exact right thing

    The deeper irony is that my original remark about that video of the queue - ‘this is quite a dystopian vision of Britain’ - or something like that - actually had nothing to do with migration, race, anything like that - it was actually a comment on the combination of people desperate for a dentist, in an ugly place, covered with graffiti, under a grey sky. It looks like a poor South American or old soviet city but with even worse weather

    It was only later I thought - hold on this might be an image capturing immigration pressure on public services

    And with that I shall finish my gin and tonic and go and watch griselda

    You have much to learn from casino about the art of the flounce.
    In fairness @leon has done some superb flounces in the past.
    Really? I think they've all been pathetic and predictable.

    Personally I would be glad to see the back of the self-obsessed, alt-right, closet racist, snowflake, conspiracy theorist.

    I say: flounce-off out of here and don't bother coming back.

    That at least is my nuanced opinion on the issue.
    I was literally about to go. Then this. Now I’m tempted to stay
    Thats the spirit. Leon the tormentor.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,800
    viewcode said:

    isam said:

    148grss said:

    Off topic: where is best to find odds for when we'll have a new king? The candidness of the release of medical information, and the whole "Harry rushed back to see daddy" makes me think it wouldn't be unlikely we'll have a new one before Xmas. The only other theory I can think of is Charles is just much happier to release info than Lizzie was, but that doesn't seem likely. It also felt odd that Sunak felt the need to be like "King is fine" after his meeting with him this week.

    I doubt you’ll find a bookmaker betting on when the King dies, and it’s never good to bet on what you want to happen because you want it to happen
    As I've mentioned before, betting on the death of a monarch is legally very dubious and used to be out-and-out illegal: it was one of the situations where gambling law separated from insurance law.
    Who gives a monkey's chuff in any event
  • Leon said:

    kjh said:

    maxh said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    148grss said:

    Leon said:

    I’ll give PBers a second chance to contemplate it

    ‘A team led by mathematician Jan H. van de Beek at the University of Amsterdam estimates that the Dutch government spent approximately €17 billion per year on migration in the period between 1995 and 2019, meaning that more than one billion euros went to migration-related issues every month.

    The study digs deeper still: annual net costs of non-Western immigration amount to €17 billion and the annual net benefits of Western immigration total one billion euros. Distinguishing between Western and non-Western migration patterns, the study comes to a startling conclusion: if immigration remains at 2015-2019 levels, the annual budget burden will increase from €17 billion in 2016 to about €50 billion. This is an increase that the welfare state would most likely not survive.

    The Dutch findings are mirrored in a similar study conducted by the Danish Finance Ministry, which concludes that non-Western immigrants are most likely to remain lifelong recipients of public finances compared to their Western or native Danish peers. Meanwhile, the picture in Germany is not much different: about 45% of those who receive unemployment benefits are not German citizens, costing the taxpayers around €20 billion per year. Austria shows similar numbers, with almost 60% of recipients having a “migrant background”.

    Van de Beek sees parts of the problem in the structure of the welfare state… [snip - see the link],

    The emerging picture is a complex one that includes both cultural and economic factors, but the overall conclusion remains the same: the current conditions under which migration to Europe takes place are not sustainable and will bring the welfare systems ever closer to collapsing. The idea promoted by Folkerts-Landau and others turned out to be far too optimistic, and what makes matters worse is that politicians still refuse to face the facts.

    Placing one’s head in the sand is, unfortunately, not the same as actual policymaking. Europe has ignored these issues for too long, and voters will make their discontent heard at the voting booth’

    https://unherd.com/thepost/dutch-study-immigration-costs-state-e17-billion-per-year/

    So the only actual report I can find (other than pieces in right wing media about the report) are in Danish, and I can't find anything discussing the report in English other than right wingers hailing it as the evidence they've always needed that immigrants are bad actually. That's not to say it is wrong, just that as someone who doesn't speak Danish I can't verify the actual findings of the report outside of places like unherd, who are not a source I trust.

    I have found an OpenDemocracy article detailing essentially the argument I put forth yesterday - how if immigrants are a "drain" on an economy it is most likely the practices of the employers who abuse those workers and use them to under cut labour rights and labour costs, but I accept that could have nothing to do with what this report was exploring. If you have a link directly to the report in English, I'd be very interested to look at it, the methodology and such.

    https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/beyond-trafficking-and-slavery/the-danish-model-of-exploiting-migrant-workers/
    Mate, it's Dutch. lol

    Not a good start to your research

    Here's the report. In English

    https://demo-demo.nl/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Borderless_Welfare_State-2.pdf
    The comparison doesn't really work for a country whose average income is about 70% of that in the Netherlands.

    The percentage of those on benefit who are not UK citizens was around 16% in 2019 (I can't quickly find a more recent figure); and migrants are more likely to be in work that native born Brits.

    So whatever your feelings about the levels of immigration, the comparison with the Netherlands (assuming the capacity of your article) is anyway complete bunk.
    And there we have it. Britain is so violently different to Netherlands none of this applies. Of course

    That is, until a comparison with an eu country comes along of which you approve, then it totally applies

    Honestly, this level of argumentation is quite depressing
    You first said "BME" which I believe stands for "Black [and] Minority Ethnic".

    That was your error. You brought race into it. Many (most? who knows) black Britons have roots here that go back decades. But you fell into the trap (to put it kindly) of identifying people by their race, not their economic status.

    Plus how many times do I have to tell you. The UK simply does not want fewer immigrants.
    Because most new migrants into the UK, since Brexit, have been BME. St Paul’s has a major chunk of non UK born citizens. It will be incomers who desperately need a new dentist, not settled citizens of whatever ethnicity

    I was using logic and combining these facts. I understand you’d prefer to resort to irrationality and call me a Nazi or whatever. I really don’t give a fuck and THIS IS BECOMING QUITE TIRESOME
    OK SORRY PLEASE STAY WITH ME.

    Do you have no understanding of what you are unleashing when you look at a bunch of immigrants and categorise them as "BME". You instantly lump in every eg black Briton into the "other", undesirable category.

    Because you are using race to identify them. Not immigrants or asylum seekers but black people . You are saying, you literally said, "but the obvious black over-representation in that queue".

    Now as you are an old hand at the writing game I'll allow that your meaning was ever so sophisticated but if our Nige stood up and said "look at all the black people queuing outside the dentist, it's intolerable" many people might be reminded of the "send them back" mantra of the '70s, now, mightn't they.
    I am losing the will to care. It’s you that chose to misinterpret me, stop it, you twat. You’re smarter than this, or at least I presumed so

    I am close to quitting. I don’t expect you to care, why should you. But constant and deliberate misconstrual can test anyone. Earlier on, someone accused me of actually saying ‘let’s expel all Romanian dentists’ presumably because I hate Romanians? Why the fuck would I hate Romanians, or any foreigners, when I spend my life wandering the world enjoying foreign cultures, peoples, cuisines, opinions, lifestyles?

    Enough. If PB wants to become a tepid Woke thought-bubble then go right ahead, you are doing the exact right thing

    The deeper irony is that my original remark about that video of the queue - ‘this is quite a dystopian vision of Britain’ - or something like that - actually had nothing to do with migration, race, anything like that - it was actually a comment on the combination of people desperate for a dentist, in an ugly place, covered with graffiti, under a grey sky. It looks like a poor South American or old soviet city but with even worse weather

    It was only later I thought - hold on this might be an image capturing immigration pressure on public services

    And with that I shall finish my gin and tonic and go and watch griselda

    You have much to learn from casino about the art of the flounce.
    In fairness @leon has done some superb flounces in the past.
    Really? I think they've all been pathetic and predictable.

    Personally I would be glad to see the back of the self-obsessed, alt-right, closet racist, snowflake, conspiracy theorist.

    I say: flounce-off out of here and don't bother coming back.

    That at least is my nuanced opinion on the issue.
    I was literally about to go. Then this. Now I’m tempted to stay
    I would just say the kindness this forum has shown me in my heath issues and across the political divide has shown PB at its absolute best, but not sure any poster celebrating or seeking another poster to leave is in the same spirit at all

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,800
    Look at this halfwit, labour don't even pretendnow , blatantly show they consider Scotland a colony of England.

  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,460
    Ok I’m going to flounce

    Just building up…

    This will be BIG. They will talk about it on subreddit r/flouncing
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,057
    148grss said:

    Off topic: where is best to find odds for when we'll have a new king? The candidness of the release of medical information, and the whole "Harry rushed back to see daddy" makes me think it wouldn't be unlikely we'll have a new one before Xmas. The only other theory I can think of is Charles is just much happier to release info than Lizzie was, but that doesn't seem likely. It also felt odd that Sunak felt the need to be like "King is fine" after his meeting with him this week.

    Treason to even speculate on the Kings death! Death to all traitors...

    (Sorry - felt the need to step up for Casino...)

    Its interesting that Harry did rush back, as if actually the cancer is more serious than is being made out. I don't for one minute believe Sunak's line of it being caught early (he may just have misspoken, as he seems to do most days). But it could just be an errant son finally being snapped out of being a dick by the trauma of dad's diagnosis.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,045
    malcolmg said:

    Look at this halfwit, labour don't even pretendnow , blatantly show they consider Scotland a colony of England.

    Whoops. That's quite impressive.

    Is she going for a new Angle?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,045
    Leon said:

    Ok I’m going to flounce

    Just building up…

    This will be BIG. They will talk about it on subreddit r/flouncing

    Will you knap a special dildo to commemorate the moment?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,764
    Are the trolls eventually learning to get a little more subtle? 70 posts in two days for the latest incarnation.

    Perhaps the new Wagner recruits in Africa have been getting better training.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,919
    ...
    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    maxh said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    148grss said:

    Leon said:

    I’ll give PBers a second chance to contemplate it

    ‘A team led by mathematician Jan H. van de Beek at the University of Amsterdam estimates that the Dutch government spent approximately €17 billion per year on migration in the period between 1995 and 2019, meaning that more than one billion euros went to migration-related issues every month.

    The study digs deeper still: annual net costs of non-Western immigration amount to €17 billion and the annual net benefits of Western immigration total one billion euros. Distinguishing between Western and non-Western migration patterns, the study comes to a startling conclusion: if immigration remains at 2015-2019 levels, the annual budget burden will increase from €17 billion in 2016 to about €50 billion. This is an increase that the welfare state would most likely not survive.

    The Dutch findings are mirrored in a similar study conducted by the Danish Finance Ministry, which concludes that non-Western immigrants are most likely to remain lifelong recipients of public finances compared to their Western or native Danish peers. Meanwhile, the picture in Germany is not much different: about 45% of those who receive unemployment benefits are not German citizens, costing the taxpayers around €20 billion per year. Austria shows similar numbers, with almost 60% of recipients having a “migrant background”.

    Van de Beek sees parts of the problem in the structure of the welfare state… [snip - see the link],

    The emerging picture is a complex one that includes both cultural and economic factors, but the overall conclusion remains the same: the current conditions under which migration to Europe takes place are not sustainable and will bring the welfare systems ever closer to collapsing. The idea promoted by Folkerts-Landau and others turned out to be far too optimistic, and what makes matters worse is that politicians still refuse to face the facts.

    Placing one’s head in the sand is, unfortunately, not the same as actual policymaking. Europe has ignored these issues for too long, and voters will make their discontent heard at the voting booth’

    https://unherd.com/thepost/dutch-study-immigration-costs-state-e17-billion-per-year/

    So the only actual report I can find (other than pieces in right wing media about the report) are in Danish, and I can't find anything discussing the report in English other than right wingers hailing it as the evidence they've always needed that immigrants are bad actually. That's not to say it is wrong, just that as someone who doesn't speak Danish I can't verify the actual findings of the report outside of places like unherd, who are not a source I trust.

    I have found an OpenDemocracy article detailing essentially the argument I put forth yesterday - how if immigrants are a "drain" on an economy it is most likely the practices of the employers who abuse those workers and use them to under cut labour rights and labour costs, but I accept that could have nothing to do with what this report was exploring. If you have a link directly to the report in English, I'd be very interested to look at it, the methodology and such.

    https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/beyond-trafficking-and-slavery/the-danish-model-of-exploiting-migrant-workers/
    Mate, it's Dutch. lol

    Not a good start to your research

    Here's the report. In English

    https://demo-demo.nl/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Borderless_Welfare_State-2.pdf
    The comparison doesn't really work for a country whose average income is about 70% of that in the Netherlands.

    The percentage of those on benefit who are not UK citizens was around 16% in 2019 (I can't quickly find a more recent figure); and migrants are more likely to be in work that native born Brits.

    So whatever your feelings about the levels of immigration, the comparison with the Netherlands (assuming the capacity of your article) is anyway complete bunk.
    And there we have it. Britain is so violently different to Netherlands none of this applies. Of course

    That is, until a comparison with an eu country comes along of which you approve, then it totally applies

    Honestly, this level of argumentation is quite depressing
    You first said "BME" which I believe stands for "Black [and] Minority Ethnic".

    That was your error. You brought race into it. Many (most? who knows) black Britons have roots here that go back decades. But you fell into the trap (to put it kindly) of identifying people by their race, not their economic status.

    Plus how many times do I have to tell you. The UK simply does not want fewer immigrants.
    Because most new migrants into the UK, since Brexit, have been BME. St Paul’s has a major chunk of non UK born citizens. It will be incomers who desperately need a new dentist, not settled citizens of whatever ethnicity

    I was using logic and combining these facts. I understand you’d prefer to resort to irrationality and call me a Nazi or whatever. I really don’t give a fuck and THIS IS BECOMING QUITE TIRESOME
    OK SORRY PLEASE STAY WITH ME.

    Do you have no understanding of what you are unleashing when you look at a bunch of immigrants and categorise them as "BME". You instantly lump in every eg black Briton into the "other", undesirable category.

    Because you are using race to identify them. Not immigrants or asylum seekers but black people . You are saying, you literally said, "but the obvious black over-representation in that queue".

    Now as you are an old hand at the writing game I'll allow that your meaning was ever so sophisticated but if our Nige stood up and said "look at all the black people queuing outside the dentist, it's intolerable" many people might be reminded of the "send them back" mantra of the '70s, now, mightn't they.
    I am losing the will to care. It’s you that chose to misinterpret me, stop it, you twat. You’re smarter than this, or at least I presumed so

    I am close to quitting. I don’t expect you to care, why should you. But constant and deliberate misconstrual can test anyone. Earlier on, someone accused me of actually saying ‘let’s expel all Romanian dentists’ presumably because I hate Romanians? Why the fuck would I hate Romanians, or any foreigners, when I spend my life wandering the world enjoying foreign cultures, peoples, cuisines, opinions, lifestyles?

    Enough. If PB wants to become a tepid Woke thought-bubble then go right ahead, you are doing the exact right thing

    The deeper irony is that my original remark about that video of the queue - ‘this is quite a dystopian vision of Britain’ - or something like that - actually had nothing to do with migration, race, anything like that - it was actually a comment on the combination of people desperate for a dentist, in an ugly place, covered with graffiti, under a grey sky. It looks like a poor South American or old soviet city but with even worse weather

    It was only later I thought - hold on this might be an image capturing immigration pressure on public services

    And with that I shall finish my gin and tonic and go and watch griselda

    You have much to learn from casino about the art of the flounce.
    In fairness @leon has done some superb flounces in the past.
    Really? I think they've all been pathetic and predictable.

    Personally I would be glad to see the back of the self-obsessed, alt-right, closet racist, snowflake, conspiracy theorist.

    I say: flounce-off out of here and don't bother coming back.

    That at least is my nuanced opinion on the issue.
    I was literally about to go. Then this. Now I’m tempted to stay
    Maybe if you go forth we'll see a return of the legend that is Sean T.

    That would be some trade off. I wonder if he still lurks?
  • HarperHarper Posts: 197

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    maxh said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    148grss said:

    Leon said:

    I’ll give PBers a second chance to contemplate it

    ‘A team led by mathematician Jan H. van de Beek at the University of Amsterdam estimates that the Dutch government spent approximately €17 billion per year on migration in the period between 1995 and 2019, meaning that more than one billion euros went to migration-related issues every month.

    The study digs deeper still: annual net costs of non-Western immigration amount to €17 billion and the annual net benefits of Western immigration total one billion euros. Distinguishing between Western and non-Western migration patterns, the study comes to a startling conclusion: if immigration remains at 2015-2019 levels, the annual budget burden will increase from €17 billion in 2016 to about €50 billion. This is an increase that the welfare state would most likely not survive.

    The Dutch findings are mirrored in a similar study conducted by the Danish Finance Ministry, which concludes that non-Western immigrants are most likely to remain lifelong recipients of public finances compared to their Western or native Danish peers. Meanwhile, the picture in Germany is not much different: about 45% of those who receive unemployment benefits are not German citizens, costing the taxpayers around €20 billion per year. Austria shows similar numbers, with almost 60% of recipients having a “migrant background”.

    Van de Beek sees parts of the problem in the structure of the welfare state… [snip - see the link],

    The emerging picture is a complex one that includes both cultural and economic factors, but the overall conclusion remains the same: the current conditions under which migration to Europe takes place are not sustainable and will bring the welfare systems ever closer to collapsing. The idea promoted by Folkerts-Landau and others turned out to be far too optimistic, and what makes matters worse is that politicians still refuse to face the facts.

    Placing one’s head in the sand is, unfortunately, not the same as actual policymaking. Europe has ignored these issues for too long, and voters will make their discontent heard at the voting booth’

    https://unherd.com/thepost/dutch-study-immigration-costs-state-e17-billion-per-year/

    So the only actual report I can find (other than pieces in right wing media about the report) are in Danish, and I can't find anything discussing the report in English other than right wingers hailing it as the evidence they've always needed that immigrants are bad actually. That's not to say it is wrong, just that as someone who doesn't speak Danish I can't verify the actual findings of the report outside of places like unherd, who are not a source I trust.

    I have found an OpenDemocracy article detailing essentially the argument I put forth yesterday - how if immigrants are a "drain" on an economy it is most likely the practices of the employers who abuse those workers and use them to under cut labour rights and labour costs, but I accept that could have nothing to do with what this report was exploring. If you have a link directly to the report in English, I'd be very interested to look at it, the methodology and such.

    https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/beyond-trafficking-and-slavery/the-danish-model-of-exploiting-migrant-workers/
    Mate, it's Dutch. lol

    Not a good start to your research

    Here's the report. In English

    https://demo-demo.nl/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Borderless_Welfare_State-2.pdf
    The comparison doesn't really work for a country whose average income is about 70% of that in the Netherlands.

    The percentage of those on benefit who are not UK citizens was around 16% in 2019 (I can't quickly find a more recent figure); and migrants are more likely to be in work that native born Brits.

    So whatever your feelings about the levels of immigration, the comparison with the Netherlands (assuming the capacity of your article) is anyway complete bunk.
    And there we have it. Britain is so violently different to Netherlands none of this applies. Of course

    That is, until a comparison with an eu country comes along of which you approve, then it totally applies

    Honestly, this level of argumentation is quite depressing
    You first said "BME" which I believe stands for "Black [and] Minority Ethnic".

    That was your error. You brought race into it. Many (most? who knows) black Britons have roots here that go back decades. But you fell into the trap (to put it kindly) of identifying people by their race, not their economic status.

    Plus how many times do I have to tell you. The UK simply does not want fewer immigrants.
    Because most new migrants into the UK, since Brexit, have been BME. St Paul’s has a major chunk of non UK born citizens. It will be incomers who desperately need a new dentist, not settled citizens of whatever ethnicity

    I was using logic and combining these facts. I understand you’d prefer to resort to irrationality and call me a Nazi or whatever. I really don’t give a fuck and THIS IS BECOMING QUITE TIRESOME
    OK SORRY PLEASE STAY WITH ME.

    Do you have no understanding of what you are unleashing when you look at a bunch of immigrants and categorise them as "BME". You instantly lump in every eg black Briton into the "other", undesirable category.

    Because you are using race to identify them. Not immigrants or asylum seekers but black people . You are saying, you literally said, "but the obvious black over-representation in that queue".

    Now as you are an old hand at the writing game I'll allow that your meaning was ever so sophisticated but if our Nige stood up and said "look at all the black people queuing outside the dentist, it's intolerable" many people might be reminded of the "send them back" mantra of the '70s, now, mightn't they.
    I am losing the will to care. It’s you that chose to misinterpret me, stop it, you twat. You’re smarter than this, or at least I presumed so

    I am close to quitting. I don’t expect you to care, why should you. But constant and deliberate misconstrual can test anyone. Earlier on, someone accused me of actually saying ‘let’s expel all Romanian dentists’ presumably because I hate Romanians? Why the fuck would I hate Romanians, or any foreigners, when I spend my life wandering the world enjoying foreign cultures, peoples, cuisines, opinions, lifestyles?

    Enough. If PB wants to become a tepid Woke thought-bubble then go right ahead, you are doing the exact right thing

    The deeper irony is that my original remark about that video of the queue - ‘this is quite a dystopian vision of Britain’ - or something like that - actually had nothing to do with migration, race, anything like that - it was actually a comment on the combination of people desperate for a dentist, in an ugly place, covered with graffiti, under a grey sky. It looks like a poor South American or old soviet city but with even worse weather

    It was only later I thought - hold on this might be an image capturing immigration pressure on public services

    And with that I shall finish my gin and tonic and go and watch griselda

    You have much to learn from casino about the art of the flounce.
    In fairness @leon has done some superb flounces in the past.
    Really? I think they've all been pathetic and predictable.

    Personally I would be glad to see the back of the self-obsessed, alt-right, closet racist, snowflake, conspiracy theorist.

    I say: flounce-off out of here and don't bother coming back.

    That at least is my nuanced opinion on the issue.
    I was literally about to go. Then this. Now I’m tempted to stay
    I would just say the kindness this forum has shown me in my heath issues and across the political divide has shown PB at its absolute best, but not sure any poster celebrating or seeking another poster to leave is in the same spirit at all

    Yes I hope your health soon improves.
    On that topic i went to a funeral a week ago and couldnt believe how much some people have aged.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 3,818
    Leon said:

    Ok I’m going to flounce

    Just building up…

    This will be BIG. They will talk about it on subreddit r/flouncing

    It’s going to be bigger than Lennon leaving the Beatles. Bloody Woko Ono.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,045
    Harper said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    maxh said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    148grss said:

    Leon said:

    I’ll give PBers a second chance to contemplate it

    ‘A team led by mathematician Jan H. van de Beek at the University of Amsterdam estimates that the Dutch government spent approximately €17 billion per year on migration in the period between 1995 and 2019, meaning that more than one billion euros went to migration-related issues every month.

    The study digs deeper still: annual net costs of non-Western immigration amount to €17 billion and the annual net benefits of Western immigration total one billion euros. Distinguishing between Western and non-Western migration patterns, the study comes to a startling conclusion: if immigration remains at 2015-2019 levels, the annual budget burden will increase from €17 billion in 2016 to about €50 billion. This is an increase that the welfare state would most likely not survive.

    The Dutch findings are mirrored in a similar study conducted by the Danish Finance Ministry, which concludes that non-Western immigrants are most likely to remain lifelong recipients of public finances compared to their Western or native Danish peers. Meanwhile, the picture in Germany is not much different: about 45% of those who receive unemployment benefits are not German citizens, costing the taxpayers around €20 billion per year. Austria shows similar numbers, with almost 60% of recipients having a “migrant background”.

    Van de Beek sees parts of the problem in the structure of the welfare state… [snip - see the link],

    The emerging picture is a complex one that includes both cultural and economic factors, but the overall conclusion remains the same: the current conditions under which migration to Europe takes place are not sustainable and will bring the welfare systems ever closer to collapsing. The idea promoted by Folkerts-Landau and others turned out to be far too optimistic, and what makes matters worse is that politicians still refuse to face the facts.

    Placing one’s head in the sand is, unfortunately, not the same as actual policymaking. Europe has ignored these issues for too long, and voters will make their discontent heard at the voting booth’

    https://unherd.com/thepost/dutch-study-immigration-costs-state-e17-billion-per-year/

    So the only actual report I can find (other than pieces in right wing media about the report) are in Danish, and I can't find anything discussing the report in English other than right wingers hailing it as the evidence they've always needed that immigrants are bad actually. That's not to say it is wrong, just that as someone who doesn't speak Danish I can't verify the actual findings of the report outside of places like unherd, who are not a source I trust.

    I have found an OpenDemocracy article detailing essentially the argument I put forth yesterday - how if immigrants are a "drain" on an economy it is most likely the practices of the employers who abuse those workers and use them to under cut labour rights and labour costs, but I accept that could have nothing to do with what this report was exploring. If you have a link directly to the report in English, I'd be very interested to look at it, the methodology and such.

    https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/beyond-trafficking-and-slavery/the-danish-model-of-exploiting-migrant-workers/
    Mate, it's Dutch. lol

    Not a good start to your research

    Here's the report. In English

    https://demo-demo.nl/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Borderless_Welfare_State-2.pdf
    The comparison doesn't really work for a country whose average income is about 70% of that in the Netherlands.

    The percentage of those on benefit who are not UK citizens was around 16% in 2019 (I can't quickly find a more recent figure); and migrants are more likely to be in work that native born Brits.

    So whatever your feelings about the levels of immigration, the comparison with the Netherlands (assuming the capacity of your article) is anyway complete bunk.
    And there we have it. Britain is so violently different to Netherlands none of this applies. Of course

    That is, until a comparison with an eu country comes along of which you approve, then it totally applies

    Honestly, this level of argumentation is quite depressing
    You first said "BME" which I believe stands for "Black [and] Minority Ethnic".

    That was your error. You brought race into it. Many (most? who knows) black Britons have roots here that go back decades. But you fell into the trap (to put it kindly) of identifying people by their race, not their economic status.

    Plus how many times do I have to tell you. The UK simply does not want fewer immigrants.
    Because most new migrants into the UK, since Brexit, have been BME. St Paul’s has a major chunk of non UK born citizens. It will be incomers who desperately need a new dentist, not settled citizens of whatever ethnicity

    I was using logic and combining these facts. I understand you’d prefer to resort to irrationality and call me a Nazi or whatever. I really don’t give a fuck and THIS IS BECOMING QUITE TIRESOME
    OK SORRY PLEASE STAY WITH ME.

    Do you have no understanding of what you are unleashing when you look at a bunch of immigrants and categorise them as "BME". You instantly lump in every eg black Briton into the "other", undesirable category.

    Because you are using race to identify them. Not immigrants or asylum seekers but black people . You are saying, you literally said, "but the obvious black over-representation in that queue".

    Now as you are an old hand at the writing game I'll allow that your meaning was ever so sophisticated but if our Nige stood up and said "look at all the black people queuing outside the dentist, it's intolerable" many people might be reminded of the "send them back" mantra of the '70s, now, mightn't they.
    I am losing the will to care. It’s you that chose to misinterpret me, stop it, you twat. You’re smarter than this, or at least I presumed so

    I am close to quitting. I don’t expect you to care, why should you. But constant and deliberate misconstrual can test anyone. Earlier on, someone accused me of actually saying ‘let’s expel all Romanian dentists’ presumably because I hate Romanians? Why the fuck would I hate Romanians, or any foreigners, when I spend my life wandering the world enjoying foreign cultures, peoples, cuisines, opinions, lifestyles?

    Enough. If PB wants to become a tepid Woke thought-bubble then go right ahead, you are doing the exact right thing

    The deeper irony is that my original remark about that video of the queue - ‘this is quite a dystopian vision of Britain’ - or something like that - actually had nothing to do with migration, race, anything like that - it was actually a comment on the combination of people desperate for a dentist, in an ugly place, covered with graffiti, under a grey sky. It looks like a poor South American or old soviet city but with even worse weather

    It was only later I thought - hold on this might be an image capturing immigration pressure on public services

    And with that I shall finish my gin and tonic and go and watch griselda

    You have much to learn from casino about the art of the flounce.
    In fairness @leon has done some superb flounces in the past.
    Really? I think they've all been pathetic and predictable.

    Personally I would be glad to see the back of the self-obsessed, alt-right, closet racist, snowflake, conspiracy theorist.

    I say: flounce-off out of here and don't bother coming back.

    That at least is my nuanced opinion on the issue.
    I was literally about to go. Then this. Now I’m tempted to stay
    I would just say the kindness this forum has shown me in my heath issues and across the political divide has shown PB at its absolute best, but not sure any poster celebrating or seeking another poster to leave is in the same spirit at all

    Yes I hope your health soon improves.
    On that topic i went to a funeral a week ago and couldnt believe how much some people have aged.
    You were expecting them to have got younger?
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 3,630
    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    maxh said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    148grss said:

    Leon said:

    I’ll give PBers a second chance to contemplate it

    ‘A team led by mathematician Jan H. van de Beek at the University of Amsterdam estimates that the Dutch government spent approximately €17 billion per year on migration in the period between 1995 and 2019, meaning that more than one billion euros went to migration-related issues every month.

    The study digs deeper still: annual net costs of non-Western immigration amount to €17 billion and the annual net benefits of Western immigration total one billion euros. Distinguishing between Western and non-Western migration patterns, the study comes to a startling conclusion: if immigration remains at 2015-2019 levels, the annual budget burden will increase from €17 billion in 2016 to about €50 billion. This is an increase that the welfare state would most likely not survive.

    The Dutch findings are mirrored in a similar study conducted by the Danish Finance Ministry, which concludes that non-Western immigrants are most likely to remain lifelong recipients of public finances compared to their Western or native Danish peers. Meanwhile, the picture in Germany is not much different: about 45% of those who receive unemployment benefits are not German citizens, costing the taxpayers around €20 billion per year. Austria shows similar numbers, with almost 60% of recipients having a “migrant background”.

    Van de Beek sees parts of the problem in the structure of the welfare state… [snip - see the link],

    The emerging picture is a complex one that includes both cultural and economic factors, but the overall conclusion remains the same: the current conditions under which migration to Europe takes place are not sustainable and will bring the welfare systems ever closer to collapsing. The idea promoted by Folkerts-Landau and others turned out to be far too optimistic, and what makes matters worse is that politicians still refuse to face the facts.

    Placing one’s head in the sand is, unfortunately, not the same as actual policymaking. Europe has ignored these issues for too long, and voters will make their discontent heard at the voting booth’

    https://unherd.com/thepost/dutch-study-immigration-costs-state-e17-billion-per-year/

    So the only actual report I can find (other than pieces in right wing media about the report) are in Danish, and I can't find anything discussing the report in English other than right wingers hailing it as the evidence they've always needed that immigrants are bad actually. That's not to say it is wrong, just that as someone who doesn't speak Danish I can't verify the actual findings of the report outside of places like unherd, who are not a source I trust.

    I have found an OpenDemocracy article detailing essentially the argument I put forth yesterday - how if immigrants are a "drain" on an economy it is most likely the practices of the employers who abuse those workers and use them to under cut labour rights and labour costs, but I accept that could have nothing to do with what this report was exploring. If you have a link directly to the report in English, I'd be very interested to look at it, the methodology and such.

    https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/beyond-trafficking-and-slavery/the-danish-model-of-exploiting-migrant-workers/
    Mate, it's Dutch. lol

    Not a good start to your research

    Here's the report. In English

    https://demo-demo.nl/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Borderless_Welfare_State-2.pdf
    The comparison doesn't really work for a country whose average income is about 70% of that in the Netherlands.

    The percentage of those on benefit who are not UK citizens was around 16% in 2019 (I can't quickly find a more recent figure); and migrants are more likely to be in work that native born Brits.

    So whatever your feelings about the levels of immigration, the comparison with the Netherlands (assuming the capacity of your article) is anyway complete bunk.
    And there we have it. Britain is so violently different to Netherlands none of this applies. Of course

    That is, until a comparison with an eu country comes along of which you approve, then it totally applies

    Honestly, this level of argumentation is quite depressing
    You first said "BME" which I believe stands for "Black [and] Minority Ethnic".

    That was your error. You brought race into it. Many (most? who knows) black Britons have roots here that go back decades. But you fell into the trap (to put it kindly) of identifying people by their race, not their economic status.

    Plus how many times do I have to tell you. The UK simply does not want fewer immigrants.
    Because most new migrants into the UK, since Brexit, have been BME. St Paul’s has a major chunk of non UK born citizens. It will be incomers who desperately need a new dentist, not settled citizens of whatever ethnicity

    I was using logic and combining these facts. I understand you’d prefer to resort to irrationality and call me a Nazi or whatever. I really don’t give a fuck and THIS IS BECOMING QUITE TIRESOME
    OK SORRY PLEASE STAY WITH ME.

    Do you have no understanding of what you are unleashing when you look at a bunch of immigrants and categorise them as "BME". You instantly lump in every eg black Briton into the "other", undesirable category.

    Because you are using race to identify them. Not immigrants or asylum seekers but black people . You are saying, you literally said, "but the obvious black over-representation in that queue".

    Now as you are an old hand at the writing game I'll allow that your meaning was ever so sophisticated but if our Nige stood up and said "look at all the black people queuing outside the dentist, it's intolerable" many people might be reminded of the "send them back" mantra of the '70s, now, mightn't they.
    I am losing the will to care. It’s you that chose to misinterpret me, stop it, you twat. You’re smarter than this, or at least I presumed so

    I am close to quitting. I don’t expect you to care, why should you. But constant and deliberate misconstrual can test anyone. Earlier on, someone accused me of actually saying ‘let’s expel all Romanian dentists’ presumably because I hate Romanians? Why the fuck would I hate Romanians, or any foreigners, when I spend my life wandering the world enjoying foreign cultures, peoples, cuisines, opinions, lifestyles?

    Enough. If PB wants to become a tepid Woke thought-bubble then go right ahead, you are doing the exact right thing

    The deeper irony is that my original remark about that video of the queue - ‘this is quite a dystopian vision of Britain’ - or something like that - actually had nothing to do with migration, race, anything like that - it was actually a comment on the combination of people desperate for a dentist, in an ugly place, covered with graffiti, under a grey sky. It looks like a poor South American or old soviet city but with even worse weather

    It was only later I thought - hold on this might be an image capturing immigration pressure on public services

    And with that I shall finish my gin and tonic and go and watch griselda

    You have much to learn from casino about the art of the flounce.
    In fairness @leon has done some superb flounces in the past.
    Really? I think they've all been pathetic and predictable.

    Personally I would be glad to see the back of the self-obsessed, alt-right, closet racist, snowflake, conspiracy theorist.

    I say: flounce-off out of here and don't bother coming back.

    That at least is my nuanced opinion on the issue.
    I was literally about to go. Then this. Now I’m tempted to stay
    The definition of a reactionary - just wanting to troll people who disagree rather than holding a coherent political model yourself.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,466
    edited February 8
    ydoethur said:

    malcolmg said:

    Look at this halfwit, labour don't even pretendnow , blatantly show they consider Scotland a colony of England.

    Whoops. That's quite impressive.

    Is she going for a new Angle?
    Old spoof, ISTR. Look at the date.

    PS Just checked: her real account doesn't have the underline before MP.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,919
    Leon said:

    Ok I’m going to flounce

    Just building up…

    This will be BIG. They will talk about it on subreddit r/flouncing

    Can you give us a hint at your new regeneration handle?

    Forewarned is forearmed.
  • Harper said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    maxh said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    148grss said:

    Leon said:

    I’ll give PBers a second chance to contemplate it

    ‘A team led by mathematician Jan H. van de Beek at the University of Amsterdam estimates that the Dutch government spent approximately €17 billion per year on migration in the period between 1995 and 2019, meaning that more than one billion euros went to migration-related issues every month.

    The study digs deeper still: annual net costs of non-Western immigration amount to €17 billion and the annual net benefits of Western immigration total one billion euros. Distinguishing between Western and non-Western migration patterns, the study comes to a startling conclusion: if immigration remains at 2015-2019 levels, the annual budget burden will increase from €17 billion in 2016 to about €50 billion. This is an increase that the welfare state would most likely not survive.

    The Dutch findings are mirrored in a similar study conducted by the Danish Finance Ministry, which concludes that non-Western immigrants are most likely to remain lifelong recipients of public finances compared to their Western or native Danish peers. Meanwhile, the picture in Germany is not much different: about 45% of those who receive unemployment benefits are not German citizens, costing the taxpayers around €20 billion per year. Austria shows similar numbers, with almost 60% of recipients having a “migrant background”.

    Van de Beek sees parts of the problem in the structure of the welfare state… [snip - see the link],

    The emerging picture is a complex one that includes both cultural and economic factors, but the overall conclusion remains the same: the current conditions under which migration to Europe takes place are not sustainable and will bring the welfare systems ever closer to collapsing. The idea promoted by Folkerts-Landau and others turned out to be far too optimistic, and what makes matters worse is that politicians still refuse to face the facts.

    Placing one’s head in the sand is, unfortunately, not the same as actual policymaking. Europe has ignored these issues for too long, and voters will make their discontent heard at the voting booth’

    https://unherd.com/thepost/dutch-study-immigration-costs-state-e17-billion-per-year/

    So the only actual report I can find (other than pieces in right wing media about the report) are in Danish, and I can't find anything discussing the report in English other than right wingers hailing it as the evidence they've always needed that immigrants are bad actually. That's not to say it is wrong, just that as someone who doesn't speak Danish I can't verify the actual findings of the report outside of places like unherd, who are not a source I trust.

    I have found an OpenDemocracy article detailing essentially the argument I put forth yesterday - how if immigrants are a "drain" on an economy it is most likely the practices of the employers who abuse those workers and use them to under cut labour rights and labour costs, but I accept that could have nothing to do with what this report was exploring. If you have a link directly to the report in English, I'd be very interested to look at it, the methodology and such.

    https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/beyond-trafficking-and-slavery/the-danish-model-of-exploiting-migrant-workers/
    Mate, it's Dutch. lol

    Not a good start to your research

    Here's the report. In English

    https://demo-demo.nl/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Borderless_Welfare_State-2.pdf
    The comparison doesn't really work for a country whose average income is about 70% of that in the Netherlands.

    The percentage of those on benefit who are not UK citizens was around 16% in 2019 (I can't quickly find a more recent figure); and migrants are more likely to be in work that native born Brits.

    So whatever your feelings about the levels of immigration, the comparison with the Netherlands (assuming the capacity of your article) is anyway complete bunk.
    And there we have it. Britain is so violently different to Netherlands none of this applies. Of course

    That is, until a comparison with an eu country comes along of which you approve, then it totally applies

    Honestly, this level of argumentation is quite depressing
    You first said "BME" which I believe stands for "Black [and] Minority Ethnic".

    That was your error. You brought race into it. Many (most? who knows) black Britons have roots here that go back decades. But you fell into the trap (to put it kindly) of identifying people by their race, not their economic status.

    Plus how many times do I have to tell you. The UK simply does not want fewer immigrants.
    Because most new migrants into the UK, since Brexit, have been BME. St Paul’s has a major chunk of non UK born citizens. It will be incomers who desperately need a new dentist, not settled citizens of whatever ethnicity

    I was using logic and combining these facts. I understand you’d prefer to resort to irrationality and call me a Nazi or whatever. I really don’t give a fuck and THIS IS BECOMING QUITE TIRESOME
    OK SORRY PLEASE STAY WITH ME.

    Do you have no understanding of what you are unleashing when you look at a bunch of immigrants and categorise them as "BME". You instantly lump in every eg black Briton into the "other", undesirable category.

    Because you are using race to identify them. Not immigrants or asylum seekers but black people . You are saying, you literally said, "but the obvious black over-representation in that queue".

    Now as you are an old hand at the writing game I'll allow that your meaning was ever so sophisticated but if our Nige stood up and said "look at all the black people queuing outside the dentist, it's intolerable" many people might be reminded of the "send them back" mantra of the '70s, now, mightn't they.
    I am losing the will to care. It’s you that chose to misinterpret me, stop it, you twat. You’re smarter than this, or at least I presumed so

    I am close to quitting. I don’t expect you to care, why should you. But constant and deliberate misconstrual can test anyone. Earlier on, someone accused me of actually saying ‘let’s expel all Romanian dentists’ presumably because I hate Romanians? Why the fuck would I hate Romanians, or any foreigners, when I spend my life wandering the world enjoying foreign cultures, peoples, cuisines, opinions, lifestyles?

    Enough. If PB wants to become a tepid Woke thought-bubble then go right ahead, you are doing the exact right thing

    The deeper irony is that my original remark about that video of the queue - ‘this is quite a dystopian vision of Britain’ - or something like that - actually had nothing to do with migration, race, anything like that - it was actually a comment on the combination of people desperate for a dentist, in an ugly place, covered with graffiti, under a grey sky. It looks like a poor South American or old soviet city but with even worse weather

    It was only later I thought - hold on this might be an image capturing immigration pressure on public services

    And with that I shall finish my gin and tonic and go and watch griselda

    You have much to learn from casino about the art of the flounce.
    In fairness @leon has done some superb flounces in the past.
    Really? I think they've all been pathetic and predictable.

    Personally I would be glad to see the back of the self-obsessed, alt-right, closet racist, snowflake, conspiracy theorist.

    I say: flounce-off out of here and don't bother coming back.

    That at least is my nuanced opinion on the issue.
    I was literally about to go. Then this. Now I’m tempted to stay
    I would just say the kindness this forum has shown me in my heath issues and across the political divide has shown PB at its absolute best, but not sure any poster celebrating or seeking another poster to leave is in the same spirit at all

    Yes I hope your health soon improves.
    On that topic i went to a funeral a week ago and couldnt believe how much some people have aged.
    Thank you and it is a sad fact that many of our peers have passed and we are just grateful for our blessings and in my case, my new pacemaker which seems to be working exceptionally well
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,460
    Having just watched Griselda, episode 5 (superb) I am inspired to offer a deal to the PB Feds

    I will agree NOT to flounce, if PB silences all lawyers, accountants and business executives, because these people are stupendously dull. That’s why no one likes them

    Get rid of them, and I might STAY THE FLOUNCE

    Your move, PB
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,045
    In the least surprising news of the day, disgraced justice Clarence Thomas makes it abundantly clear he's going to say Trump can run whatever the facts, the law or the Constitution.

    That lunch Peter the Punter buys for me will taste bitter.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,057
    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Will Biden get 25th-ed? They are clearly struggling to conceal the fact that his brain is a piece of shit.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/caileygleeson/2024/02/08/biden-mixes-up-angela-merkel-with-dead-german-leader-in-second-slip-up-this-week/

    I mean, he should, but the problem will then be Kamala (who is shit, although would do better on Gaza per reporting) and then she'd have to pick a VP (which would cause its own problems). I think if he really is unable to be POTUS the Dems will allow this to go to the convention and stitch it up there - that's the only way to avoid a long bloody primary and condense that into like a day of bloody primary fighting. Tbf, the GOP may do the same if Trump is ineligible / in jail.
    Did you see the news about the Houthis sentencing 13 people to death for homosexuality?

    https://today.lorientlejour.com/article/1367225/13-sentenced-to-death-for-homosexuality-in-yemen-source.html
    No. That's bad, they shouldn't do that. I dislike the Houthis. On the other hand, the blockade they did was good. These can both be things I believe, because bad groups / parties / individuals can do good things.
    Firing drones at shipping is good? You have a weird morale compass.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,045
    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    malcolmg said:

    Look at this halfwit, labour don't even pretendnow , blatantly show they consider Scotland a colony of England.

    Whoops. That's quite impressive.

    Is she going for a new Angle?
    Old spoof, ISTR. Look at the date.
    I was just testing, honest *innocent face*
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,045
    Leon said:

    Having just watched Griselda, episode 5 (superb) I am inspired to offer a deal to the PB Feds

    I will agree NOT to flounce, if PB silences all lawyers, accountants and business executives, because these people are stupendously dull. That’s why no one likes them

    Get rid of them, and I might STAY THE FLOUNCE

    Your move, PB

    Do I count as a business executive? I own and run a multinational company, but don't pay myself £4.3 million a year (unfortunately).
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,764
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    TimS said:

    148grss said:

    algarkirk said:

    148grss said:

    DavidL said:

    isam said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Starmer's remorseless pursuit of GE victory continues apace, as he dismantles step by step every potential attack line that can be pursued against him. Today it's the turn of the £28 billion sum for the Green Prosperity Plan.

    The mistake was, of course, putting a number on it back in 2021, at a time of low interest rates and when they had little idea what the state of the economy would be in 2024. Not sure why they did that - much better to establish the Green Prosperity Plan and GB Energy as policies, the financing of which would be revealed at the time of the GE.

    By the time of the GE, the Tories will only be left with two attack lines:
    1. This happily married father doesn't know what a woman is (I think he does), and
    2. Starmer keeps changing his mind in the light of new evidence.

    The tories will almost certainly run a negative campaign against Starmer because what else do they have? Nothing.

    However, for a negative campaign to work it has to resonate with something the voters already suspect or feel. Attacks portraying Starmer as a lying chancer are just going to bounce off his heavily shellacked hair
    It is the only attack they have, but it is based in truth; he is a liar and a chancer, and there’s loads of video evidence of him at it, so it could work. The main problem is, he’s so dull it’s hard to believe he is the complete snide he is
    2 incidents yesterday make me pause in that assessment. Firstly, the outrage on behalf of the mother of Brianna Ghey was instant and genuine. He may have developed it later into politics but he was genuinely appalled. Secondly, it was noted that at the end of PMQs he immediately went up to Elliot Cockburn, who had disclosed his attempted suicide, to lend him support and comfort.

    Just 2 straws in the wind but for the moment I am willing to accept that Starmer is a genuinely decent man who doesn't seem to have fixed views on much other than he should be PM. I certainly don't think of him as a complete snide.
    I think this is where people misunderstand Starmer. Starmer is a "respect for the office if not the person" guy - he was a lawyer and that is drummed into them. To Starmer the things that are wrong with the country are wrong because the Tories and Corbyn have, in his mind, brought them into disrepute. His job, then, is to make these things reputable again.

    One of the things that many trans people have noted about this recent kerfuffle is a) it seems that it's fine to say transphobic dogwhistles when a murdered transgirl isn't a big news story and b) that the framing is all about respect for Brianna's mother and not the dignity of transpeople themselves. That's because, in the British discourse, transpeople are free to be disrespected; grieving mothers are not. So when the two come together, some people miss the marker.

    We can see this with the political left and right all the time. Concerns about immigration are always "concerns of real people". Concerns about austerity are always "concerns of left wing activists". This isn't because cuts were popular - it's because people who are deemed "left wing" in the UK are not really respectable political actors. Similar for people who liked Corbyn/ism - they are not deserving of respect in the political arena, according to those within the political milieu, so you can lie to them as much as you want.

    Hence Starmer. He ran to be Labour leader by appealing to the centre, by being the sensible man in the suit, and the left, by saying he would do Corbynism but sensibly and in a way your grandma would support. The thing is only centrists and the media are people worth respecting, so as soon as he won he had to defer to their needs and desires and not to the left any more. Transpeople and their rights is a great example of this - before all this Starmer only ever interacted with the transphobic side of this struggle; Mumsnetters, his transphobic MPs, talking about getting rid of Gillick and agreeing with the school guidance recently released. Now, in front of a grieving mother, he tries to walk this back.

    I remember listening to a podcast that described Starmer as a neo-Confucianist. That his entire platform is if we bring back respect of the institutions and the correct symbols and trappings of tradition, that everything will fix itself outside of the material reality we're in. I think that sums him up perfectly.
    It's much simpler to understand Starmer thus: He is a perfectly decent man and has the protean qualities required in real politics. He campaigned to be leader in a manner to win the membership vote, and will campaign in the GE in a manner to win the general public vote. They are different. Losing both of these campaigns is much much easier than winning them. He has a very decent chance of winning both.

    He will govern in accordance with the laws of political reality, things which neither the Labour membership, nor many voters are good at analysing.

    Oh yes; respect for institutions, based on their actual excellence and merits, would be most welcome.
    What are the laws of political reality? Because what I see is a country that has been starved of public sector funding for a very long time atrophying as it's essential public services become worse and the price of everything gets higher. And all the policies that would address that, which are actually somewhat popular with voters, being jettisoned out of some idea of what centrism is.
    Public spending as a percentage of GDP is higher than it was at any time while Tony Blair was PM.

    https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-key-questions/what-does-government-spend-money
    The proportion of people beyond working age is massively greater now though. Fewer working age people footing the bill for vastly greater health and social care demand. I'd be interested in seeing someone adjust spending and tax numbers for demographics.
    It’s easy to add population via immigration, but that can turn into a Ponzi scheme that simply gets worse and worse over time.

    The correct way to do it, from my own observations elsewhere, is to limit primary immigration to high salaries and needed jobs, which does appear to be happening slowly, but also to allow a number of other immigrants on a “guest worker” basis, strictly time limited, a version of which has been agreed with Australia.

    And no, students shouldn’t bring dependents, that’s the next big scandal and almost certainly an immigration scam running in countries such as Nigeria. Limit it to doctoral or post-doc studies.
    How is importing someone fully trained at 21 any different from someone having a baby, in terms of Ponzi-scheme-ness?

    I mean, I understand it from a population-mix perspective and a changing society one. But from a straight long-term dependency ratio basis, then a baby and an imported person are identical, except you don't need to pay for the schooling of the imported person.
    If you *permanently* import them at age 21, they work at minimum wage for 45 years and then claim a pension for 30 years, then they’re a massive net drain on the UK public purse over their lifetime.

    If you take a new 21-year-old on a two-year visa every two years, then as the population curve eases you can restrict immigration numbers further, with no effect not he public purse.

    This is how things work in my region, I’ll never be a citizen and never entitled to public support. If I’m rich, I can sponsor myself for long-term residence, but that’s on me, and I’ll need to be able to keep up the health insurance premiums.
  • HarperHarper Posts: 197
    ydoethur said:

    Harper said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    maxh said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    148grss said:

    Leon said:

    I’ll give PBers a second chance to contemplate it

    ‘A team led by mathematician Jan H. van de Beek at the University of Amsterdam estimates that the Dutch government spent approximately €17 billion per year on migration in the period between 1995 and 2019, meaning that more than one billion euros went to migration-related issues every month.

    The study digs deeper still: annual net costs of non-Western immigration amount to €17 billion and the annual net benefits of Western immigration total one billion euros. Distinguishing between Western and non-Western migration patterns, the study comes to a startling conclusion: if immigration remains at 2015-2019 levels, the annual budget burden will increase from €17 billion in 2016 to about €50 billion. This is an increase that the welfare state would most likely not survive.

    The Dutch findings are mirrored in a similar study conducted by the Danish Finance Ministry, which concludes that non-Western immigrants are most likely to remain lifelong recipients of public finances compared to their Western or native Danish peers. Meanwhile, the picture in Germany is not much different: about 45% of those who receive unemployment benefits are not German citizens, costing the taxpayers around €20 billion per year. Austria shows similar numbers, with almost 60% of recipients having a “migrant background”.

    Van de Beek sees parts of the problem in the structure of the welfare state… [snip - see the link],

    The emerging picture is a complex one that includes both cultural and economic factors, but the overall conclusion remains the same: the current conditions under which migration to Europe takes place are not sustainable and will bring the welfare systems ever closer to collapsing. The idea promoted by Folkerts-Landau and others turned out to be far too optimistic, and what makes matters worse is that politicians still refuse to face the facts.

    Placing one’s head in the sand is, unfortunately, not the same as actual policymaking. Europe has ignored these issues for too long, and voters will make their discontent heard at the voting booth’

    https://unherd.com/thepost/dutch-study-immigration-costs-state-e17-billion-per-year/

    So the only actual report I can find (other than pieces in right wing media about the report) are in Danish, and I can't find anything discussing the report in English other than right wingers hailing it as the evidence they've always needed that immigrants are bad actually. That's not to say it is wrong, just that as someone who doesn't speak Danish I can't verify the actual findings of the report outside of places like unherd, who are not a source I trust.

    I have found an OpenDemocracy article detailing essentially the argument I put forth yesterday - how if immigrants are a "drain" on an economy it is most likely the practices of the employers who abuse those workers and use them to under cut labour rights and labour costs, but I accept that could have nothing to do with what this report was exploring. If you have a link directly to the report in English, I'd be very interested to look at it, the methodology and such.

    https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/beyond-trafficking-and-slavery/the-danish-model-of-exploiting-migrant-workers/
    Mate, it's Dutch. lol

    Not a good start to your research

    Here's the report. In English

    https://demo-demo.nl/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Borderless_Welfare_State-2.pdf
    The comparison doesn't really work for a country whose average income is about 70% of that in the Netherlands.

    The percentage of those on benefit who are not UK citizens was around 16% in 2019 (I can't quickly find a more recent figure); and migrants are more likely to be in work that native born Brits.

    So whatever your feelings about the levels of immigration, the comparison with the Netherlands (assuming the capacity of your article) is anyway complete bunk.
    And there we have it. Britain is so violently different to Netherlands none of this applies. Of course

    That is, until a comparison with an eu country comes along of which you approve, then it totally applies

    Honestly, this level of argumentation is quite depressing
    You first said "BME" which I believe stands for "Black [and] Minority Ethnic".

    That was your error. You brought race into it. Many (most? who knows) black Britons have roots here that go back decades. But you fell into the trap (to put it kindly) of identifying people by their race, not their economic status.

    Plus how many times do I have to tell you. The UK simply does not want fewer immigrants.
    Because most new migrants into the UK, since Brexit, have been BME. St Paul’s has a major chunk of non UK born citizens. It will be incomers who desperately need a new dentist, not settled citizens of whatever ethnicity

    I was using logic and combining these facts. I understand you’d prefer to resort to irrationality and call me a Nazi or whatever. I really don’t give a fuck and THIS IS BECOMING QUITE TIRESOME
    OK SORRY PLEASE STAY WITH ME.

    Do you have no understanding of what you are unleashing when you look at a bunch of immigrants and categorise them as "BME". You instantly lump in every eg black Briton into the "other", undesirable category.

    Because you are using race to identify them. Not immigrants or asylum seekers but black people . You are saying, you literally said, "but the obvious black over-representation in that queue".

    Now as you are an old hand at the writing game I'll allow that your meaning was ever so sophisticated but if our Nige stood up and said "look at all the black people queuing outside the dentist, it's intolerable" many people might be reminded of the "send them back" mantra of the '70s, now, mightn't they.
    I am losing the will to care. It’s you that chose to misinterpret me, stop it, you twat. You’re smarter than this, or at least I presumed so

    I am close to quitting. I don’t expect you to care, why should you. But constant and deliberate misconstrual can test anyone. Earlier on, someone accused me of actually saying ‘let’s expel all Romanian dentists’ presumably because I hate Romanians? Why the fuck would I hate Romanians, or any foreigners, when I spend my life wandering the world enjoying foreign cultures, peoples, cuisines, opinions, lifestyles?

    Enough. If PB wants to become a tepid Woke thought-bubble then go right ahead, you are doing the exact right thing

    The deeper irony is that my original remark about that video of the queue - ‘this is quite a dystopian vision of Britain’ - or something like that - actually had nothing to do with migration, race, anything like that - it was actually a comment on the combination of people desperate for a dentist, in an ugly place, covered with graffiti, under a grey sky. It looks like a poor South American or old soviet city but with even worse weather

    It was only later I thought - hold on this might be an image capturing immigration pressure on public services

    And with that I shall finish my gin and tonic and go and watch griselda

    You have much to learn from casino about the art of the flounce.
    In fairness @leon has done some superb flounces in the past.
    Really? I think they've all been pathetic and predictable.

    Personally I would be glad to see the back of the self-obsessed, alt-right, closet racist, snowflake, conspiracy theorist.

    I say: flounce-off out of here and don't bother coming back.

    That at least is my nuanced opinion on the issue.
    I was literally about to go. Then this. Now I’m tempted to stay
    I would just say the kindness this forum has shown me in my heath issues and across the political divide has shown PB at its absolute best, but not sure any poster celebrating or seeking another poster to leave is in the same spirit at all

    Yes I hope your health soon improves.
    On that topic i went to a funeral a week ago and couldnt believe how much some people have aged.
    You were expecting them to have got younger?
    Oh no but some I havent seen since lockdown and my how they have aged. Some have aged 15 years in 5. I imagine the stress of the last few years hasnt helped a lot.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,848
    Holly & Hubbie at odds?

    Exclusive

    — Property tycoon Tory donor Nick Candy says it’s “time for a change” of government to Labour

    — praises Keir Starmer’s engagement with business

    — blasts years of Tory infighting

    Speaking to @BloombergUK @flacqua In the City podcast >>


    https://x.com/alexwickham/status/1755619620206092539?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
  • kjhkjh Posts: 10,542
    edited February 8
    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    maxh said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    148grss said:

    Leon said:

    I’ll give PBers a second chance to contemplate it

    ‘A team led by mathematician Jan H. van de Beek at the University of Amsterdam estimates that the Dutch government spent approximately €17 billion per year on migration in the period between 1995 and 2019, meaning that more than one billion euros went to migration-related issues every month.

    The study digs deeper still: annual net costs of non-Western immigration amount to €17 billion and the annual net benefits of Western immigration total one billion euros. Distinguishing between Western and non-Western migration patterns, the study comes to a startling conclusion: if immigration remains at 2015-2019 levels, the annual budget burden will increase from €17 billion in 2016 to about €50 billion. This is an increase that the welfare state would most likely not survive.

    The Dutch findings are mirrored in a similar study conducted by the Danish Finance Ministry, which concludes that non-Western immigrants are most likely to remain lifelong recipients of public finances compared to their Western or native Danish peers. Meanwhile, the picture in Germany is not much different: about 45% of those who receive unemployment benefits are not German citizens, costing the taxpayers around €20 billion per year. Austria shows similar numbers, with almost 60% of recipients having a “migrant background”.

    Van de Beek sees parts of the problem in the structure of the welfare state… [snip - see the link],

    The emerging picture is a complex one that includes both cultural and economic factors, but the overall conclusion remains the same: the current conditions under which migration to Europe takes place are not sustainable and will bring the welfare systems ever closer to collapsing. The idea promoted by Folkerts-Landau and others turned out to be far too optimistic, and what makes matters worse is that politicians still refuse to face the facts.

    Placing one’s head in the sand is, unfortunately, not the same as actual policymaking. Europe has ignored these issues for too long, and voters will make their discontent heard at the voting booth’

    https://unherd.com/thepost/dutch-study-immigration-costs-state-e17-billion-per-year/

    So the only actual report I can find (other than pieces in right wing media about the report) are in Danish, and I can't find anything discussing the report in English other than right wingers hailing it as the evidence they've always needed that immigrants are bad actually. That's not to say it is wrong, just that as someone who doesn't speak Danish I can't verify the actual findings of the report outside of places like unherd, who are not a source I trust.

    I have found an OpenDemocracy article detailing essentially the argument I put forth yesterday - how if immigrants are a "drain" on an economy it is most likely the practices of the employers who abuse those workers and use them to under cut labour rights and labour costs, but I accept that could have nothing to do with what this report was exploring. If you have a link directly to the report in English, I'd be very interested to look at it, the methodology and such.

    https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/beyond-trafficking-and-slavery/the-danish-model-of-exploiting-migrant-workers/
    Mate, it's Dutch. lol

    Not a good start to your research

    Here's the report. In English

    https://demo-demo.nl/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Borderless_Welfare_State-2.pdf
    The comparison doesn't really work for a country whose average income is about 70% of that in the Netherlands.

    The percentage of those on benefit who are not UK citizens was around 16% in 2019 (I can't quickly find a more recent figure); and migrants are more likely to be in work that native born Brits.

    So whatever your feelings about the levels of immigration, the comparison with the Netherlands (assuming the capacity of your article) is anyway complete bunk.
    And there we have it. Britain is so violently different to Netherlands none of this applies. Of course

    That is, until a comparison with an eu country comes along of which you approve, then it totally applies

    Honestly, this level of argumentation is quite depressing
    You first said "BME" which I believe stands for "Black [and] Minority Ethnic".

    That was your error. You brought race into it. Many (most? who knows) black Britons have roots here that go back decades. But you fell into the trap (to put it kindly) of identifying people by their race, not their economic status.

    Plus how many times do I have to tell you. The UK simply does not want fewer immigrants.
    Because most new migrants into the UK, since Brexit, have been BME. St Paul’s has a major chunk of non UK born citizens. It will be incomers who desperately need a new dentist, not settled citizens of whatever ethnicity

    I was using logic and combining these facts. I understand you’d prefer to resort to irrationality and call me a Nazi or whatever. I really don’t give a fuck and THIS IS BECOMING QUITE TIRESOME
    OK SORRY PLEASE STAY WITH ME.

    Do you have no understanding of what you are unleashing when you look at a bunch of immigrants and categorise them as "BME". You instantly lump in every eg black Briton into the "other", undesirable category.

    Because you are using race to identify them. Not immigrants or asylum seekers but black people . You are saying, you literally said, "but the obvious black over-representation in that queue".

    Now as you are an old hand at the writing game I'll allow that your meaning was ever so sophisticated but if our Nige stood up and said "look at all the black people queuing outside the dentist, it's intolerable" many people might be reminded of the "send them back" mantra of the '70s, now, mightn't they.
    I am losing the will to care. It’s you that chose to misinterpret me, stop it, you twat. You’re smarter than this, or at least I presumed so

    I am close to quitting. I don’t expect you to care, why should you. But constant and deliberate misconstrual can test anyone. Earlier on, someone accused me of actually saying ‘let’s expel all Romanian dentists’ presumably because I hate Romanians? Why the fuck would I hate Romanians, or any foreigners, when I spend my life wandering the world enjoying foreign cultures, peoples, cuisines, opinions, lifestyles?

    Enough. If PB wants to become a tepid Woke thought-bubble then go right ahead, you are doing the exact right thing

    The deeper irony is that my original remark about that video of the queue - ‘this is quite a dystopian vision of Britain’ - or something like that - actually had nothing to do with migration, race, anything like that - it was actually a comment on the combination of people desperate for a dentist, in an ugly place, covered with graffiti, under a grey sky. It looks like a poor South American or old soviet city but with even worse weather

    It was only later I thought - hold on this might be an image capturing immigration pressure on public services

    And with that I shall finish my gin and tonic and go and watch griselda

    You have much to learn from casino about the art of the flounce.
    In fairness @leon has done some superb flounces in the past.
    Really? I think they've all been pathetic and predictable.

    Personally I would be glad to see the back of the self-obsessed, alt-right, closet racist, snowflake, conspiracy theorist.

    I say: flounce-off out of here and don't bother coming back.

    That at least is my nuanced opinion on the issue.
    I was literally about to go. Then this. Now I’m tempted to stay
    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    maxh said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    148grss said:

    Leon said:

    I’ll give PBers a second chance to contemplate it

    ‘A team led by mathematician Jan H. van de Beek at the University of Amsterdam estimates that the Dutch government spent approximately €17 billion per year on migration in the period between 1995 and 2019, meaning that more than one billion euros went to migration-related issues every month.

    The study digs deeper still: annual net costs of non-Western immigration amount to €17 billion and the annual net benefits of Western immigration total one billion euros. Distinguishing between Western and non-Western migration patterns, the study comes to a startling conclusion: if immigration remains at 2015-2019 levels, the annual budget burden will increase from €17 billion in 2016 to about €50 billion. This is an increase that the welfare state would most likely not survive.

    The Dutch findings are mirrored in a similar study conducted by the Danish Finance Ministry, which concludes that non-Western immigrants are most likely to remain lifelong recipients of public finances compared to their Western or native Danish peers. Meanwhile, the picture in Germany is not much different: about 45% of those who receive unemployment benefits are not German citizens, costing the taxpayers around €20 billion per year. Austria shows similar numbers, with almost 60% of recipients having a “migrant background”.

    Van de Beek sees parts of the problem in the structure of the welfare state… [snip - see the link],

    The emerging picture is a complex one that includes both cultural and economic factors, but the overall conclusion remains the same: the current conditions under which migration to Europe takes place are not sustainable and will bring the welfare systems ever closer to collapsing. The idea promoted by Folkerts-Landau and others turned out to be far too optimistic, and what makes matters worse is that politicians still refuse to face the facts.

    Placing one’s head in the sand is, unfortunately, not the same as actual policymaking. Europe has ignored these issues for too long, and voters will make their discontent heard at the voting booth’

    https://unherd.com/thepost/dutch-study-immigration-costs-state-e17-billion-per-year/

    So the only actual report I can find (other than pieces in right wing media about the report) are in Danish, and I can't find anything discussing the report in English other than right wingers hailing it as the evidence they've always needed that immigrants are bad actually. That's not to say it is wrong, just that as someone who doesn't speak Danish I can't verify the actual findings of the report outside of places like unherd, who are not a source I trust.

    I have found an OpenDemocracy article detailing essentially the argument I put forth yesterday - how if immigrants are a "drain" on an economy it is most likely the practices of the employers who abuse those workers and use them to under cut labour rights and labour costs, but I accept that could have nothing to do with what this report was exploring. If you have a link directly to the report in English, I'd be very interested to look at it, the methodology and such.

    https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/beyond-trafficking-and-slavery/the-danish-model-of-exploiting-migrant-workers/
    Mate, it's Dutch. lol

    Not a good start to your research

    Here's the report. In English

    https://demo-demo.nl/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Borderless_Welfare_State-2.pdf
    The comparison doesn't really work for a country whose average income is about 70% of that in the Netherlands.

    The percentage of those on benefit who are not UK citizens was around 16% in 2019 (I can't quickly find a more recent figure); and migrants are more likely to be in work that native born Brits.

    So whatever your feelings about the levels of immigration, the comparison with the Netherlands (assuming the capacity of your article) is anyway complete bunk.
    And there we have it. Britain is so violently different to Netherlands none of this applies. Of course

    That is, until a comparison with an eu country comes along of which you approve, then it totally applies

    Honestly, this level of argumentation is quite depressing
    You first said "BME" which I believe stands for "Black [and] Minority Ethnic".

    That was your error. You brought race into it. Many (most? who knows) black Britons have roots here that go back decades. But you fell into the trap (to put it kindly) of identifying people by their race, not their economic status.

    Plus how many times do I have to tell you. The UK simply does not want fewer immigrants.
    Because most new migrants into the UK, since Brexit, have been BME. St Paul’s has a major chunk of non UK born citizens. It will be incomers who desperately need a new dentist, not settled citizens of whatever ethnicity

    I was using logic and combining these facts. I understand you’d prefer to resort to irrationality and call me a Nazi or whatever. I really don’t give a fuck and THIS IS BECOMING QUITE TIRESOME
    OK SORRY PLEASE STAY WITH ME.

    Do you have no understanding of what you are unleashing when you look at a bunch of immigrants and categorise them as "BME". You instantly lump in every eg black Briton into the "other", undesirable category.

    Because you are using race to identify them. Not immigrants or asylum seekers but black people . You are saying, you literally said, "but the obvious black over-representation in that queue".

    Now as you are an old hand at the writing game I'll allow that your meaning was ever so sophisticated but if our Nige stood up and said "look at all the black people queuing outside the dentist, it's intolerable" many people might be reminded of the "send them back" mantra of the '70s, now, mightn't they.
    I am losing the will to care. It’s you that chose to misinterpret me, stop it, you twat. You’re smarter than this, or at least I presumed so

    I am close to quitting. I don’t expect you to care, why should you. But constant and deliberate misconstrual can test anyone. Earlier on, someone accused me of actually saying ‘let’s expel all Romanian dentists’ presumably because I hate Romanians? Why the fuck would I hate Romanians, or any foreigners, when I spend my life wandering the world enjoying foreign cultures, peoples, cuisines, opinions, lifestyles?

    Enough. If PB wants to become a tepid Woke thought-bubble then go right ahead, you are doing the exact right thing

    The deeper irony is that my original remark about that video of the queue - ‘this is quite a dystopian vision of Britain’ - or something like that - actually had nothing to do with migration, race, anything like that - it was actually a comment on the combination of people desperate for a dentist, in an ugly place, covered with graffiti, under a grey sky. It looks like a poor South American or old soviet city but with even worse weather

    It was only later I thought - hold on this might be an image capturing immigration pressure on public services

    And with that I shall finish my gin and tonic and go and watch griselda

    You have much to learn from casino about the art of the flounce.
    In fairness @leon has done some superb flounces in the past.
    Really? I think they've all been pathetic and predictable.

    Personally I would be glad to see the back of the self-obsessed, alt-right, closet racist, snowflake, conspiracy theorist.

    I say: flounce-off out of here and don't bother coming back.

    That at least is my nuanced opinion on the issue.
    I was literally about to go. Then this. Now I’m tempted to stay
    As I said, not the big bang flounce that you get with Casino, but the long drawn out eloquent flounce with twists and turns is Leon's style.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,956
    edited February 8

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Will Biden get 25th-ed? They are clearly struggling to conceal the fact that his brain is a piece of shit.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/caileygleeson/2024/02/08/biden-mixes-up-angela-merkel-with-dead-german-leader-in-second-slip-up-this-week/

    I mean, he should, but the problem will then be Kamala (who is shit, although would do better on Gaza per reporting) and then she'd have to pick a VP (which would cause its own problems). I think if he really is unable to be POTUS the Dems will allow this to go to the convention and stitch it up there - that's the only way to avoid a long bloody primary and condense that into like a day of bloody primary fighting. Tbf, the GOP may do the same if Trump is ineligible / in jail.
    Did you see the news about the Houthis sentencing 13 people to death for homosexuality?

    https://today.lorientlejour.com/article/1367225/13-sentenced-to-death-for-homosexuality-in-yemen-source.html
    No. That's bad, they shouldn't do that. I dislike the Houthis. On the other hand, the blockade they did was good. These can both be things I believe, because bad groups / parties / individuals can do good things.
    Firing drones at shipping is good? You have a weird morale compass.
    I had someone tell me, in all seriousness, that the Houthis failure to sink any of the ships they'd targeted proved that their actions were carefully calibrated to avoid causing too much harm.

    I think they genuinely believed that the Houthis were being more careful to avoid causing collateral damage than the US and UK were in their retaliatory strikes.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,466
    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Having just watched Griselda, episode 5 (superb) I am inspired to offer a deal to the PB Feds

    I will agree NOT to flounce, if PB silences all lawyers, accountants and business executives, because these people are stupendously dull. That’s why no one likes them

    Get rid of them, and I might STAY THE FLOUNCE

    Your move, PB

    Do I count as a business executive? I own and run a multinational company, but don't pay myself £4.3 million a year (unfortunately).
    And I own and run a business with all of £75 turnover pa (renting a small field out).

    As it is, we have already seen more flouncing than a roomfull of Victorian table legs.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,764

    Sandpit said:

    TimS said:

    148grss said:

    algarkirk said:

    148grss said:

    DavidL said:

    isam said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Starmer's remorseless pursuit of GE victory continues apace, as he dismantles step by step every potential attack line that can be pursued against him. Today it's the turn of the £28 billion sum for the Green Prosperity Plan.

    The mistake was, of course, putting a number on it back in 2021, at a time of low interest rates and when they had little idea what the state of the economy would be in 2024. Not sure why they did that - much better to establish the Green Prosperity Plan and GB Energy as policies, the financing of which would be revealed at the time of the GE.

    By the time of the GE, the Tories will only be left with two attack lines:
    1. This happily married father doesn't know what a woman is (I think he does), and
    2. Starmer keeps changing his mind in the light of new evidence.

    The tories will almost certainly run a negative campaign against Starmer because what else do they have? Nothing.

    However, for a negative campaign to work it has to resonate with something the voters already suspect or feel. Attacks portraying Starmer as a lying chancer are just going to bounce off his heavily shellacked hair
    It is the only attack they have, but it is based in truth; he is a liar and a chancer, and there’s loads of video evidence of him at it, so it could work. The main problem is, he’s so dull it’s hard to believe he is the complete snide he is
    2 incidents yesterday make me pause in that assessment. Firstly, the outrage on behalf of the mother of Brianna Ghey was instant and genuine. He may have developed it later into politics but he was genuinely appalled. Secondly, it was noted that at the end of PMQs he immediately went up to Elliot Cockburn, who had disclosed his attempted suicide, to lend him support and comfort.

    Just 2 straws in the wind but for the moment I am willing to accept that Starmer is a genuinely decent man who doesn't seem to have fixed views on much other than he should be PM. I certainly don't think of him as a complete snide.
    I think this is where people misunderstand Starmer. Starmer is a "respect for the office if not the person" guy - he was a lawyer and that is drummed into them. To Starmer the things that are wrong with the country are wrong because the Tories and Corbyn have, in his mind, brought them into disrepute. His job, then, is to make these things reputable again.

    One of the things that many trans people have noted about this recent kerfuffle is a) it seems that it's fine to say transphobic dogwhistles when a murdered transgirl isn't a big news story and b) that the framing is all about respect for Brianna's mother and not the dignity of transpeople themselves. That's because, in the British discourse, transpeople are free to be disrespected; grieving mothers are not. So when the two come together, some people miss the marker.

    We can see this with the political left and right all the time. Concerns about immigration are always "concerns of real people". Concerns about austerity are always "concerns of left wing activists". This isn't because cuts were popular - it's because people who are deemed "left wing" in the UK are not really respectable political actors. Similar for people who liked Corbyn/ism - they are not deserving of respect in the political arena, according to those within the political milieu, so you can lie to them as much as you want.

    Hence Starmer. He ran to be Labour leader by appealing to the centre, by being the sensible man in the suit, and the left, by saying he would do Corbynism but sensibly and in a way your grandma would support. The thing is only centrists and the media are people worth respecting, so as soon as he won he had to defer to their needs and desires and not to the left any more. Transpeople and their rights is a great example of this - before all this Starmer only ever interacted with the transphobic side of this struggle; Mumsnetters, his transphobic MPs, talking about getting rid of Gillick and agreeing with the school guidance recently released. Now, in front of a grieving mother, he tries to walk this back.

    I remember listening to a podcast that described Starmer as a neo-Confucianist. That his entire platform is if we bring back respect of the institutions and the correct symbols and trappings of tradition, that everything will fix itself outside of the material reality we're in. I think that sums him up perfectly.
    It's much simpler to understand Starmer thus: He is a perfectly decent man and has the protean qualities required in real politics. He campaigned to be leader in a manner to win the membership vote, and will campaign in the GE in a manner to win the general public vote. They are different. Losing both of these campaigns is much much easier than winning them. He has a very decent chance of winning both.

    He will govern in accordance with the laws of political reality, things which neither the Labour membership, nor many voters are good at analysing.

    Oh yes; respect for institutions, based on their actual excellence and merits, would be most welcome.
    What are the laws of political reality? Because what I see is a country that has been starved of public sector funding for a very long time atrophying as it's essential public services become worse and the price of everything gets higher. And all the policies that would address that, which are actually somewhat popular with voters, being jettisoned out of some idea of what centrism is.
    Public spending as a percentage of GDP is higher than it was at any time while Tony Blair was PM.

    https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-key-questions/what-does-government-spend-money
    The proportion of people beyond working age is massively greater now though. Fewer working age people footing the bill for vastly greater health and social care demand. I'd be interested in seeing someone adjust spending and tax numbers for demographics.
    It’s easy to add population via immigration, but that can turn into a Ponzi scheme that simply gets worse and worse over time.

    The correct way to do it, from my own observations elsewhere, is to limit primary immigration to high salaries and needed jobs, which does appear to be happening slowly, but also to allow a number of other immigrants on a “guest worker” basis, strictly time limited, a version of which has been agreed with Australia.

    And no, students shouldn’t bring dependents, that’s the next big scandal and almost certainly an immigration scam running in countries such as Nigeria. Limit it to doctoral or post-doc studies.
    There are already rules on students' dependants. This quote is from Cambridge's website:

    "Your partner and children will be eligible to apply for a dependant visa if:

    "Your course is a full-time postgraduate level research degree* which is at least 9 months long OR

    "You are a government sponsored student on a full-time course that is 6 months or longer. This means you are receiving a funding award for your studies from the UK government or an overseas government. This is defined in policy guidance as a scholarship from a central government department covering full fees and living costs. There is no requirement for the dependant to be in receipt of an award from a government, but dependants will be required to meet the financial requirements for their application (as outlined in the information below)."
    Yes, my point was that the current rules are way too lax.

    You can buy a degree from a university in India or Nigeria, and use that to enroll yourself on a PG course at a UK university that allows you to bring dependents. Once you’re in the UK, it’s pretty much impossible to be deported.

    Don’t underestimate the skills of wealthy people in the third world, to take advantage of every aspect of Western immigration law. I know quite a few of them!!
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 4,948
    Harper said:

    ydoethur said:

    Harper said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    maxh said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    148grss said:

    Leon said:

    I’ll give PBers a second chance to contemplate it

    ‘A team led by mathematician Jan H. van de Beek at the University of Amsterdam estimates that the Dutch government spent approximately €17 billion per year on migration in the period between 1995 and 2019, meaning that more than one billion euros went to migration-related issues every month.

    The study digs deeper still: annual net costs of non-Western immigration amount to €17 billion and the annual net benefits of Western immigration total one billion euros. Distinguishing between Western and non-Western migration patterns, the study comes to a startling conclusion: if immigration remains at 2015-2019 levels, the annual budget burden will increase from €17 billion in 2016 to about €50 billion. This is an increase that the welfare state would most likely not survive.

    The Dutch findings are mirrored in a similar study conducted by the Danish Finance Ministry, which concludes that non-Western immigrants are most likely to remain lifelong recipients of public finances compared to their Western or native Danish peers. Meanwhile, the picture in Germany is not much different: about 45% of those who receive unemployment benefits are not German citizens, costing the taxpayers around €20 billion per year. Austria shows similar numbers, with almost 60% of recipients having a “migrant background”.

    Van de Beek sees parts of the problem in the structure of the welfare state… [snip - see the link],

    The emerging picture is a complex one that includes both cultural and economic factors, but the overall conclusion remains the same: the current conditions under which migration to Europe takes place are not sustainable and will bring the welfare systems ever closer to collapsing. The idea promoted by Folkerts-Landau and others turned out to be far too optimistic, and what makes matters worse is that politicians still refuse to face the facts.

    Placing one’s head in the sand is, unfortunately, not the same as actual policymaking. Europe has ignored these issues for too long, and voters will make their discontent heard at the voting booth’

    https://unherd.com/thepost/dutch-study-immigration-costs-state-e17-billion-per-year/

    So the only actual report I can find (other than pieces in right wing media about the report) are in Danish, and I can't find anything discussing the report in English other than right wingers hailing it as the evidence they've always needed that immigrants are bad actually. That's not to say it is wrong, just that as someone who doesn't speak Danish I can't verify the actual findings of the report outside of places like unherd, who are not a source I trust.

    I have found an OpenDemocracy article detailing essentially the argument I put forth yesterday - how if immigrants are a "drain" on an economy it is most likely the practices of the employers who abuse those workers and use them to under cut labour rights and labour costs, but I accept that could have nothing to do with what this report was exploring. If you have a link directly to the report in English, I'd be very interested to look at it, the methodology and such.

    https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/beyond-trafficking-and-slavery/the-danish-model-of-exploiting-migrant-workers/
    Mate, it's Dutch. lol

    Not a good start to your research

    Here's the report. In English

    https://demo-demo.nl/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Borderless_Welfare_State-2.pdf
    The comparison doesn't really work for a country whose average income is about 70% of that in the Netherlands.

    The percentage of those on benefit who are not UK citizens was around 16% in 2019 (I can't quickly find a more recent figure); and migrants are more likely to be in work that native born Brits.

    So whatever your feelings about the levels of immigration, the comparison with the Netherlands (assuming the capacity of your article) is anyway complete bunk.
    And there we have it. Britain is so violently different to Netherlands none of this applies. Of course

    That is, until a comparison with an eu country comes along of which you approve, then it totally applies

    Honestly, this level of argumentation is quite depressing
    You first said "BME" which I believe stands for "Black [and] Minority Ethnic".

    That was your error. You brought race into it. Many (most? who knows) black Britons have roots here that go back decades. But you fell into the trap (to put it kindly) of identifying people by their race, not their economic status.

    Plus how many times do I have to tell you. The UK simply does not want fewer immigrants.
    Because most new migrants into the UK, since Brexit, have been BME. St Paul’s has a major chunk of non UK born citizens. It will be incomers who desperately need a new dentist, not settled citizens of whatever ethnicity

    I was using logic and combining these facts. I understand you’d prefer to resort to irrationality and call me a Nazi or whatever. I really don’t give a fuck and THIS IS BECOMING QUITE TIRESOME
    OK SORRY PLEASE STAY WITH ME.

    Do you have no understanding of what you are unleashing when you look at a bunch of immigrants and categorise them as "BME". You instantly lump in every eg black Briton into the "other", undesirable category.

    Because you are using race to identify them. Not immigrants or asylum seekers but black people . You are saying, you literally said, "but the obvious black over-representation in that queue".

    Now as you are an old hand at the writing game I'll allow that your meaning was ever so sophisticated but if our Nige stood up and said "look at all the black people queuing outside the dentist, it's intolerable" many people might be reminded of the "send them back" mantra of the '70s, now, mightn't they.
    I am losing the will to care. It’s you that chose to misinterpret me, stop it, you twat. You’re smarter than this, or at least I presumed so

    I am close to quitting. I don’t expect you to care, why should you. But constant and deliberate misconstrual can test anyone. Earlier on, someone accused me of actually saying ‘let’s expel all Romanian dentists’ presumably because I hate Romanians? Why the fuck would I hate Romanians, or any foreigners, when I spend my life wandering the world enjoying foreign cultures, peoples, cuisines, opinions, lifestyles?

    Enough. If PB wants to become a tepid Woke thought-bubble then go right ahead, you are doing the exact right thing

    The deeper irony is that my original remark about that video of the queue - ‘this is quite a dystopian vision of Britain’ - or something like that - actually had nothing to do with migration, race, anything like that - it was actually a comment on the combination of people desperate for a dentist, in an ugly place, covered with graffiti, under a grey sky. It looks like a poor South American or old soviet city but with even worse weather

    It was only later I thought - hold on this might be an image capturing immigration pressure on public services

    And with that I shall finish my gin and tonic and go and watch griselda

    You have much to learn from casino about the art of the flounce.
    In fairness @leon has done some superb flounces in the past.
    Really? I think they've all been pathetic and predictable.

    Personally I would be glad to see the back of the self-obsessed, alt-right, closet racist, snowflake, conspiracy theorist.

    I say: flounce-off out of here and don't bother coming back.

    That at least is my nuanced opinion on the issue.
    I was literally about to go. Then this. Now I’m tempted to stay
    I would just say the kindness this forum has shown me in my heath issues and across the political divide has shown PB at its absolute best, but not sure any poster celebrating or seeking another poster to leave is in the same spirit at all

    Yes I hope your health soon improves.
    On that topic i went to a funeral a week ago and couldnt believe how much some people have aged.
    You were expecting them to have got younger?
    Oh no but some I havent seen since lockdown and my how they have aged. Some have aged 15 years in 5. I imagine the stress of the last few years hasnt helped a lot.
    They’d all had COVID vaccines, no doubt?
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 2,747
    This thread has flounced off in a huff
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,460
    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Having just watched Griselda, episode 5 (superb) I am inspired to offer a deal to the PB Feds

    I will agree NOT to flounce, if PB silences all lawyers, accountants and business executives, because these people are stupendously dull. That’s why no one likes them

    Get rid of them, and I might STAY THE FLOUNCE

    Your move, PB

    Do I count as a business executive? I own and run a multinational company, but don't pay myself £4.3 million a year (unfortunately).
    You’re ok. Self employed business owners, CEOs etc, have something about them. They did something. I admire that

    The people we must purge are the lawyers, accountants, mid range execs, etc, they are the nothing people. They are evil boring functionaries. They are the people that ran Tuol Sleng torture garden, they are the people that made Auschwitz work, they ARE the problem. Also, they are so mindless. They agree with the idea of the day, and they do not question it. Whatever works, and whatever furthers their tiny tiny tiny tiny careers. They go on holiday to Tenerife
  • NEW THREAD

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,865

    148grss said:

    Off topic: where is best to find odds for when we'll have a new king? The candidness of the release of medical information, and the whole "Harry rushed back to see daddy" makes me think it wouldn't be unlikely we'll have a new one before Xmas. The only other theory I can think of is Charles is just much happier to release info than Lizzie was, but that doesn't seem likely. It also felt odd that Sunak felt the need to be like "King is fine" after his meeting with him this week.

    Treason to even speculate on the Kings death! Death to all traitors...

    (Sorry - felt the need to step up for Casino...)

    Its interesting that Harry did rush back, as if actually the cancer is more serious than is being made out. I don't for one minute believe Sunak's line of it being caught early (he may just have misspoken, as he seems to do most days). But it could just be an errant son finally being snapped out of being a dick by the trauma of dad's diagnosis.
    Either. It’s not too serious; Harry went back home after one visit.
    Or
    It’s very serious…… eg pancreatic cancer, and there’s nothing to be done but sit tight and wait. Harry went home to make arrangements to come back when needed.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 5,416
    Feels to me like SCOTUS are going to punt this. They’re going to say a state can’t keep a candidate off the ballot because they are ineligible. They will likely use the fact that Congress can remove the disability as a reason why they can’t. The wording of the amendment states that the person can’t “hold” office, not that they can’t run for office.

    If I’m right, they’ll actually leave a giant elephant in the room, because they’ll essentially be saying come back to us after the election, and we can decide if he can actually take office at that point.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,042
    Sandpit said:

    Are the trolls eventually learning to get a little more subtle? 70 posts in two days for the latest incarnation.

    Perhaps the new Wagner recruits in Africa have been getting better training.

    For some reason that reminds me of the scene in Cryptonomicon where an American Marine asks a Japanese solider why they still do banzai charges, which never work.

    The Japanese soldier replies that everyone who learnt this lesson died in a banzai charge.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,496
    isam said:

    Holly & Hubbie at odds?

    Exclusive

    — Property tycoon Tory donor Nick Candy says it’s “time for a change” of government to Labour

    — praises Keir Starmer’s engagement with business

    — blasts years of Tory infighting

    Speaking to @BloombergUK @flacqua In the City podcast >>


    https://x.com/alexwickham/status/1755619620206092539?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    Ha ha - looks like it. Divorce incoming, after Holly's rant about "crap lefties".
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,865
    edited February 8

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    maxh said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    148grss said:

    Leon said:

    I’ll give PBers a second chance to contemplate it

    ‘A team led by mathematician Jan H. van de Beek at the University of Amsterdam estimates that the Dutch government spent approximately €17 billion per year on migration in the period between 1995 and 2019, meaning that more than one billion euros went to migration-related issues every month.

    The study digs deeper still: annual net costs of non-Western immigration amount to €17 billion and the annual net benefits of Western immigration total one billion euros. Distinguishing between Western and non-Western migration patterns, the study comes to a startling conclusion: if immigration remains at 2015-2019 levels, the annual budget burden will increase from €17 billion in 2016 to about €50 billion. This is an increase that the welfare state would most likely not survive.

    The Dutch findings are mirrored in a similar study conducted by the Danish Finance Ministry, which concludes that non-Western immigrants are most likely to remain lifelong recipients of public finances compared to their Western or native Danish peers. Meanwhile, the picture in Germany is not much different: about 45% of those who receive unemployment benefits are not German citizens, costing the taxpayers around €20 billion per year. Austria shows similar numbers, with almost 60% of recipients having a “migrant background”.

    Van de Beek sees parts of the problem in the structure of the welfare state… [snip - see the link],

    The emerging picture is a complex one that includes both cultural and economic factors, but the overall conclusion remains the same: the current conditions under which migration to Europe takes place are not sustainable and will bring the welfare systems ever closer to collapsing. The idea promoted by Folkerts-Landau and others turned out to be far too optimistic, and what makes matters worse is that politicians still refuse to face the facts.

    Placing one’s head in the sand is, unfortunately, not the same as actual policymaking. Europe has ignored these issues for too long, and voters will make their discontent heard at the voting booth’

    https://unherd.com/thepost/dutch-study-immigration-costs-state-e17-billion-per-year/

    So the only actual report I can find (other than pieces in right wing media about the report) are in Danish, and I can't find anything discussing the report in English other than right wingers hailing it as the evidence they've always needed that immigrants are bad actually. That's not to say it is wrong, just that as someone who doesn't speak Danish I can't verify the actual findings of the report outside of places like unherd, who are not a source I trust.

    I have found an OpenDemocracy article detailing essentially the argument I put forth yesterday - how if immigrants are a "drain" on an economy it is most likely the practices of the employers who abuse those workers and use them to under cut labour rights and labour costs, but I accept that could have nothing to do with what this report was exploring. If you have a link directly to the report in English, I'd be very interested to look at it, the methodology and such.

    https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/beyond-trafficking-and-slavery/the-danish-model-of-exploiting-migrant-workers/
    Mate, it's Dutch. lol

    Not a good start to your research

    Here's the report. In English

    https://demo-demo.nl/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Borderless_Welfare_State-2.pdf
    The comparison doesn't really work for a country whose average income is about 70% of that in the Netherlands.

    The percentage of those on benefit who are not UK citizens was around 16% in 2019 (I can't quickly find a more recent figure); and migrants are more likely to be in work that native born Brits.

    So whatever your feelings about the levels of immigration, the comparison with the Netherlands (assuming the capacity of your article) is anyway complete bunk.
    And there we have it. Britain is so violently different to Netherlands none of this applies. Of course

    That is, until a comparison with an eu country comes along of which you approve, then it totally applies

    Honestly, this level of argumentation is quite depressing
    You first said "BME" which I believe stands for "Black [and] Minority Ethnic".

    That was your error. You brought race into it. Many (most? who knows) black Britons have roots here that go back decades. But you fell into the trap (to put it kindly) of identifying people by their race, not their economic status.

    Plus how many times do I have to tell you. The UK simply does not want fewer immigrants.
    Because most new migrants into the UK, since Brexit, have been BME. St Paul’s has a major chunk of non UK born citizens. It will be incomers who desperately need a new dentist, not settled citizens of whatever ethnicity

    I was using logic and combining these facts. I understand you’d prefer to resort to irrationality and call me a Nazi or whatever. I really don’t give a fuck and THIS IS BECOMING QUITE TIRESOME
    OK SORRY PLEASE STAY WITH ME.

    Do you have no understanding of what you are unleashing when you look at a bunch of immigrants and categorise them as "BME". You instantly lump in every eg black Briton into the "other", undesirable category.

    Because you are using race to identify them. Not immigrants or asylum seekers but black people . You are saying, you literally said, "but the obvious black over-representation in that queue".

    Now as you are an old hand at the writing game I'll allow that your meaning was ever so sophisticated but if our Nige stood up and said "look at all the black people queuing outside the dentist, it's intolerable" many people might be reminded of the "send them back" mantra of the '70s, now, mightn't they.
    I am losing the will to care. It’s you that chose to misinterpret me, stop it, you twat. You’re smarter than this, or at least I presumed so

    I am close to quitting. I don’t expect you to care, why should you. But constant and deliberate misconstrual can test anyone. Earlier on, someone accused me of actually saying ‘let’s expel all Romanian dentists’ presumably because I hate Romanians? Why the fuck would I hate Romanians, or any foreigners, when I spend my life wandering the world enjoying foreign cultures, peoples, cuisines, opinions, lifestyles?

    Enough. If PB wants to become a tepid Woke thought-bubble then go right ahead, you are doing the exact right thing

    The deeper irony is that my original remark about that video of the queue - ‘this is quite a dystopian vision of Britain’ - or something like that - actually had nothing to do with migration, race, anything like that - it was actually a comment on the combination of people desperate for a dentist, in an ugly place, covered with graffiti, under a grey sky. It looks like a poor South American or old soviet city but with even worse weather

    It was only later I thought - hold on this might be an image capturing immigration pressure on public services

    And with that I shall finish my gin and tonic and go and watch griselda

    You have much to learn from casino about the art of the flounce.
    In fairness @leon has done some superb flounces in the past.
    Really? I think they've all been pathetic and predictable.

    Personally I would be glad to see the back of the self-obsessed, alt-right, closet racist, snowflake, conspiracy theorist.

    I say: flounce-off out of here and don't bother coming back.

    That at least is my nuanced opinion on the issue.
    I was literally about to go. Then this. Now I’m tempted to stay
    I would just say the kindness this forum has shown me in my heath issues and across the political divide has shown PB at its absolute best, but not sure any poster celebrating or seeking another poster to leave is in the same spirit at all

    I second that, as it’s my experience as well. People rally round!
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,460
    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    TimS said:

    148grss said:

    algarkirk said:

    148grss said:

    DavidL said:

    isam said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Starmer's remorseless pursuit of GE victory continues apace, as he dismantles step by step every potential attack line that can be pursued against him. Today it's the turn of the £28 billion sum for the Green Prosperity Plan.

    The mistake was, of course, putting a number on it back in 2021, at a time of low interest rates and when they had little idea what the state of the economy would be in 2024. Not sure why they did that - much better to establish the Green Prosperity Plan and GB Energy as policies, the financing of which would be revealed at the time of the GE.

    By the time of the GE, the Tories will only be left with two attack lines:
    1. This happily married father doesn't know what a woman is (I think he does), and
    2. Starmer keeps changing his mind in the light of new evidence.

    The tories will almost certainly run a negative campaign against Starmer because what else do they have? Nothing.

    However, for a negative campaign to work it has to resonate with something the voters already suspect or feel. Attacks portraying Starmer as a lying chancer are just going to bounce off his heavily shellacked hair
    It is the only attack they have, but it is based in truth; he is a liar and a chancer, and there’s loads of video evidence of him at it, so it could work. The main problem is, he’s so dull it’s hard to believe he is the complete snide he is
    2 incidents yesterday make me pause in that assessment. Firstly, the outrage on behalf of the mother of Brianna Ghey was instant and genuine. He may have developed it later into politics but he was genuinely appalled. Secondly, it was noted that at the end of PMQs he immediately went up to Elliot Cockburn, who had disclosed his attempted suicide, to lend him support and comfort.

    Just 2 straws in the wind but for the moment I am willing to accept that Starmer is a genuinely decent man who doesn't seem to have fixed views on much other than he should be PM. I certainly don't think of him as a complete snide.
    I think this is where people misunderstand Starmer. Starmer is a "respect for the office if not the person" guy - he was a lawyer and that is drummed into them. To Starmer the things that are wrong with the country are wrong because the Tories and Corbyn have, in his mind, brought them into disrepute. His job, then, is to make these things reputable again.

    One of the things that many trans people have noted about this recent kerfuffle is a) it seems that it's fine to say transphobic dogwhistles when a murdered transgirl isn't a big news story and b) that the framing is all about respect for Brianna's mother and not the dignity of transpeople themselves. That's because, in the British discourse, transpeople are free to be disrespected; grieving mothers are not. So when the two come together, some people miss the marker.

    We can see this with the political left and right all the time. Concerns about immigration are always "concerns of real people". Concerns about austerity are always "concerns of left wing activists". This isn't because cuts were popular - it's because people who are deemed "left wing" in the UK are not really respectable political actors. Similar for people who liked Corbyn/ism - they are not deserving of respect in the political arena, according to those within the political milieu, so you can lie to them as much as you want.

    Hence Starmer. He ran to be Labour leader by appealing to the centre, by being the sensible man in the suit, and the left, by saying he would do Corbynism but sensibly and in a way your grandma would support. The thing is only centrists and the media are people worth respecting, so as soon as he won he had to defer to their needs and desires and not to the left any more. Transpeople and their rights is a great example of this - before all this Starmer only ever interacted with the transphobic side of this struggle; Mumsnetters, his transphobic MPs, talking about getting rid of Gillick and agreeing with the school guidance recently released. Now, in front of a grieving mother, he tries to walk this back.

    I remember listening to a podcast that described Starmer as a neo-Confucianist. That his entire platform is if we bring back respect of the institutions and the correct symbols and trappings of tradition, that everything will fix itself outside of the material reality we're in. I think that sums him up perfectly.
    It's much simpler to understand Starmer thus: He is a perfectly decent man and has the protean qualities required in real politics. He campaigned to be leader in a manner to win the membership vote, and will campaign in the GE in a manner to win the general public vote. They are different. Losing both of these campaigns is much much easier than winning them. He has a very decent chance of winning both.

    He will govern in accordance with the laws of political reality, things which neither the Labour membership, nor many voters are good at analysing.

    Oh yes; respect for institutions, based on their actual excellence and merits, would be most welcome.
    What are the laws of political reality? Because what I see is a country that has been starved of public sector funding for a very long time atrophying as it's essential public services become worse and the price of everything gets higher. And all the policies that would address that, which are actually somewhat popular with voters, being jettisoned out of some idea of what centrism is.
    Public spending as a percentage of GDP is higher than it was at any time while Tony Blair was PM.

    https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-key-questions/what-does-government-spend-money
    The proportion of people beyond working age is massively greater now though. Fewer working age people footing the bill for vastly greater health and social care demand. I'd be interested in seeing someone adjust spending and tax numbers for demographics.
    It’s easy to add population via immigration, but that can turn into a Ponzi scheme that simply gets worse and worse over time.

    The correct way to do it, from my own observations elsewhere, is to limit primary immigration to high salaries and needed jobs, which does appear to be happening slowly, but also to allow a number of other immigrants on a “guest worker” basis, strictly time limited, a version of which has been agreed with Australia.

    And no, students shouldn’t bring dependents, that’s the next big scandal and almost certainly an immigration scam running in countries such as Nigeria. Limit it to doctoral or post-doc studies.
    How is importing someone fully trained at 21 any different from someone having a baby, in terms of Ponzi-scheme-ness?

    I mean, I understand it from a population-mix perspective and a changing society one. But from a straight long-term dependency ratio basis, then a baby and an imported person are identical, except you don't need to pay for the schooling of the imported person.
    If you *permanently* import them at age 21, they work at minimum wage for 45 years and then claim a pension for 30 years, then they’re a massive net drain on the UK public purse over their lifetime.

    If you take a new 21-year-old on a two-year visa every two years, then as the population curve eases you can restrict immigration numbers further, with no effect not he public purse.

    This is how things work in my region, I’ll never be a citizen and never entitled to public support. If I’m rich, I can sponsor myself for long-term residence, but that’s on me, and I’ll need to be able to keep up the health insurance premiums.
    The most lucid and important comment of the day. It will either be ignored or denigrated
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,764
    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    TimS said:

    148grss said:

    algarkirk said:

    148grss said:

    DavidL said:

    isam said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Starmer's remorseless pursuit of GE victory continues apace, as he dismantles step by step every potential attack line that can be pursued against him. Today it's the turn of the £28 billion sum for the Green Prosperity Plan.

    The mistake was, of course, putting a number on it back in 2021, at a time of low interest rates and when they had little idea what the state of the economy would be in 2024. Not sure why they did that - much better to establish the Green Prosperity Plan and GB Energy as policies, the financing of which would be revealed at the time of the GE.

    By the time of the GE, the Tories will only be left with two attack lines:
    1. This happily married father doesn't know what a woman is (I think he does), and
    2. Starmer keeps changing his mind in the light of new evidence.

    The tories will almost certainly run a negative campaign against Starmer because what else do they have? Nothing.

    However, for a negative campaign to work it has to resonate with something the voters already suspect or feel. Attacks portraying Starmer as a lying chancer are just going to bounce off his heavily shellacked hair
    It is the only attack they have, but it is based in truth; he is a liar and a chancer, and there’s loads of video evidence of him at it, so it could work. The main problem is, he’s so dull it’s hard to believe he is the complete snide he is
    2 incidents yesterday make me pause in that assessment. Firstly, the outrage on behalf of the mother of Brianna Ghey was instant and genuine. He may have developed it later into politics but he was genuinely appalled. Secondly, it was noted that at the end of PMQs he immediately went up to Elliot Cockburn, who had disclosed his attempted suicide, to lend him support and comfort.

    Just 2 straws in the wind but for the moment I am willing to accept that Starmer is a genuinely decent man who doesn't seem to have fixed views on much other than he should be PM. I certainly don't think of him as a complete snide.
    I think this is where people misunderstand Starmer. Starmer is a "respect for the office if not the person" guy - he was a lawyer and that is drummed into them. To Starmer the things that are wrong with the country are wrong because the Tories and Corbyn have, in his mind, brought them into disrepute. His job, then, is to make these things reputable again.

    One of the things that many trans people have noted about this recent kerfuffle is a) it seems that it's fine to say transphobic dogwhistles when a murdered transgirl isn't a big news story and b) that the framing is all about respect for Brianna's mother and not the dignity of transpeople themselves. That's because, in the British discourse, transpeople are free to be disrespected; grieving mothers are not. So when the two come together, some people miss the marker.

    We can see this with the political left and right all the time. Concerns about immigration are always "concerns of real people". Concerns about austerity are always "concerns of left wing activists". This isn't because cuts were popular - it's because people who are deemed "left wing" in the UK are not really respectable political actors. Similar for people who liked Corbyn/ism - they are not deserving of respect in the political arena, according to those within the political milieu, so you can lie to them as much as you want.

    Hence Starmer. He ran to be Labour leader by appealing to the centre, by being the sensible man in the suit, and the left, by saying he would do Corbynism but sensibly and in a way your grandma would support. The thing is only centrists and the media are people worth respecting, so as soon as he won he had to defer to their needs and desires and not to the left any more. Transpeople and their rights is a great example of this - before all this Starmer only ever interacted with the transphobic side of this struggle; Mumsnetters, his transphobic MPs, talking about getting rid of Gillick and agreeing with the school guidance recently released. Now, in front of a grieving mother, he tries to walk this back.

    I remember listening to a podcast that described Starmer as a neo-Confucianist. That his entire platform is if we bring back respect of the institutions and the correct symbols and trappings of tradition, that everything will fix itself outside of the material reality we're in. I think that sums him up perfectly.
    It's much simpler to understand Starmer thus: He is a perfectly decent man and has the protean qualities required in real politics. He campaigned to be leader in a manner to win the membership vote, and will campaign in the GE in a manner to win the general public vote. They are different. Losing both of these campaigns is much much easier than winning them. He has a very decent chance of winning both.

    He will govern in accordance with the laws of political reality, things which neither the Labour membership, nor many voters are good at analysing.

    Oh yes; respect for institutions, based on their actual excellence and merits, would be most welcome.
    What are the laws of political reality? Because what I see is a country that has been starved of public sector funding for a very long time atrophying as it's essential public services become worse and the price of everything gets higher. And all the policies that would address that, which are actually somewhat popular with voters, being jettisoned out of some idea of what centrism is.
    Public spending as a percentage of GDP is higher than it was at any time while Tony Blair was PM.

    https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-key-questions/what-does-government-spend-money
    The proportion of people beyond working age is massively greater now though. Fewer working age people footing the bill for vastly greater health and social care demand. I'd be interested in seeing someone adjust spending and tax numbers for demographics.
    It’s easy to add population via immigration, but that can turn into a Ponzi scheme that simply gets worse and worse over time.

    The correct way to do it, from my own observations elsewhere, is to limit primary immigration to high salaries and needed jobs, which does appear to be happening slowly, but also to allow a number of other immigrants on a “guest worker” basis, strictly time limited, a version of which has been agreed with Australia.

    And no, students shouldn’t bring dependents, that’s the next big scandal and almost certainly an immigration scam running in countries such as Nigeria. Limit it to doctoral or post-doc studies.
    How is importing someone fully trained at 21 any different from someone having a baby, in terms of Ponzi-scheme-ness?

    I mean, I understand it from a population-mix perspective and a changing society one. But from a straight long-term dependency ratio basis, then a baby and an imported person are identical, except you don't need to pay for the schooling of the imported person.
    If you *permanently* import them at age 21, they work at minimum wage for 45 years and then claim a pension for 30 years, then they’re a massive net drain on the UK public purse over their lifetime.

    If you take a new 21-year-old on a two-year visa every two years, then as the population curve eases you can restrict immigration numbers further, with no effect not he public purse.

    This is how things work in my region, I’ll never be a citizen and never entitled to public support. If I’m rich, I can sponsor myself for long-term residence, but that’s on me, and I’ll need to be able to keep up the health insurance premiums.
    The most lucid and important comment of the day. It will either be ignored or denigrated
    It would be a great comment, were it not riddled with silly typos from my iPad.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,800
    148grss said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    maxh said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    148grss said:

    Leon said:

    I’ll give PBers a second chance to contemplate it

    ‘A team led by mathematician Jan H. van de Beek at the University of Amsterdam estimates that the Dutch government spent approximately €17 billion per year on migration in the period between 1995 and 2019, meaning that more than one billion euros went to migration-related issues every month.

    The study digs deeper still: annual net costs of non-Western immigration amount to €17 billion and the annual net benefits of Western immigration total one billion euros. Distinguishing between Western and non-Western migration patterns, the study comes to a startling conclusion: if immigration remains at 2015-2019 levels, the annual budget burden will increase from €17 billion in 2016 to about €50 billion. This is an increase that the welfare state would most likely not survive.

    The Dutch findings are mirrored in a similar study conducted by the Danish Finance Ministry, which concludes that non-Western immigrants are most likely to remain lifelong recipients of public finances compared to their Western or native Danish peers. Meanwhile, the picture in Germany is not much different: about 45% of those who receive unemployment benefits are not German citizens, costing the taxpayers around €20 billion per year. Austria shows similar numbers, with almost 60% of recipients having a “migrant background”.

    Van de Beek sees parts of the problem in the structure of the welfare state… [snip - see the link],

    The emerging picture is a complex one that includes both cultural and economic factors, but the overall conclusion remains the same: the current conditions under which migration to Europe takes place are not sustainable and will bring the welfare systems ever closer to collapsing. The idea promoted by Folkerts-Landau and others turned out to be far too optimistic, and what makes matters worse is that politicians still refuse to face the facts.

    Placing one’s head in the sand is, unfortunately, not the same as actual policymaking. Europe has ignored these issues for too long, and voters will make their discontent heard at the voting booth’

    https://unherd.com/thepost/dutch-study-immigration-costs-state-e17-billion-per-year/

    So the only actual report I can find (other than pieces in right wing media about the report) are in Danish, and I can't find anything discussing the report in English other than right wingers hailing it as the evidence they've always needed that immigrants are bad actually. That's not to say it is wrong, just that as someone who doesn't speak Danish I can't verify the actual findings of the report outside of places like unherd, who are not a source I trust.

    I have found an OpenDemocracy article detailing essentially the argument I put forth yesterday - how if immigrants are a "drain" on an economy it is most likely the practices of the employers who abuse those workers and use them to under cut labour rights and labour costs, but I accept that could have nothing to do with what this report was exploring. If you have a link directly to the report in English, I'd be very interested to look at it, the methodology and such.

    https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/beyond-trafficking-and-slavery/the-danish-model-of-exploiting-migrant-workers/
    Mate, it's Dutch. lol

    Not a good start to your research

    Here's the report. In English

    https://demo-demo.nl/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Borderless_Welfare_State-2.pdf
    The comparison doesn't really work for a country whose average income is about 70% of that in the Netherlands.

    The percentage of those on benefit who are not UK citizens was around 16% in 2019 (I can't quickly find a more recent figure); and migrants are more likely to be in work that native born Brits.

    So whatever your feelings about the levels of immigration, the comparison with the Netherlands (assuming the capacity of your article) is anyway complete bunk.
    And there we have it. Britain is so violently different to Netherlands none of this applies. Of course

    That is, until a comparison with an eu country comes along of which you approve, then it totally applies

    Honestly, this level of argumentation is quite depressing
    You first said "BME" which I believe stands for "Black [and] Minority Ethnic".

    That was your error. You brought race into it. Many (most? who knows) black Britons have roots here that go back decades. But you fell into the trap (to put it kindly) of identifying people by their race, not their economic status.

    Plus how many times do I have to tell you. The UK simply does not want fewer immigrants.
    Because most new migrants into the UK, since Brexit, have been BME. St Paul’s has a major chunk of non UK born citizens. It will be incomers who desperately need a new dentist, not settled citizens of whatever ethnicity

    I was using logic and combining these facts. I understand you’d prefer to resort to irrationality and call me a Nazi or whatever. I really don’t give a fuck and THIS IS BECOMING QUITE TIRESOME
    OK SORRY PLEASE STAY WITH ME.

    Do you have no understanding of what you are unleashing when you look at a bunch of immigrants and categorise them as "BME". You instantly lump in every eg black Briton into the "other", undesirable category.

    Because you are using race to identify them. Not immigrants or asylum seekers but black people . You are saying, you literally said, "but the obvious black over-representation in that queue".

    Now as you are an old hand at the writing game I'll allow that your meaning was ever so sophisticated but if our Nige stood up and said "look at all the black people queuing outside the dentist, it's intolerable" many people might be reminded of the "send them back" mantra of the '70s, now, mightn't they.
    I am losing the will to care. It’s you that chose to misinterpret me, stop it, you twat. You’re smarter than this, or at least I presumed so

    I am close to quitting. I don’t expect you to care, why should you. But constant and deliberate misconstrual can test anyone. Earlier on, someone accused me of actually saying ‘let’s expel all Romanian dentists’ presumably because I hate Romanians? Why the fuck would I hate Romanians, or any foreigners, when I spend my life wandering the world enjoying foreign cultures, peoples, cuisines, opinions, lifestyles?

    Enough. If PB wants to become a tepid Woke thought-bubble then go right ahead, you are doing the exact right thing

    The deeper irony is that my original remark about that video of the queue - ‘this is quite a dystopian vision of Britain’ - or something like that - actually had nothing to do with migration, race, anything like that - it was actually a comment on the combination of people desperate for a dentist, in an ugly place, covered with graffiti, under a grey sky. It looks like a poor South American or old soviet city but with even worse weather

    It was only later I thought - hold on this might be an image capturing immigration pressure on public services

    And with that I shall finish my gin and tonic and go and watch griselda

    You have much to learn from casino about the art of the flounce.
    In fairness @leon has done some superb flounces in the past.
    Really? I think they've all been pathetic and predictable.

    Personally I would be glad to see the back of the self-obsessed, alt-right, closet racist, snowflake, conspiracy theorist.

    I say: flounce-off out of here and don't bother coming back.

    That at least is my nuanced opinion on the issue.
    I was literally about to go. Then this. Now I’m tempted to stay
    The definition of a reactionary - just wanting to troll people who disagree rather than holding a coherent political model yourself.
    Hold my beer
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,800
    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    TimS said:

    148grss said:

    algarkirk said:

    148grss said:

    DavidL said:

    isam said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Starmer's remorseless pursuit of GE victory continues apace, as he dismantles step by step every potential attack line that can be pursued against him. Today it's the turn of the £28 billion sum for the Green Prosperity Plan.

    The mistake was, of course, putting a number on it back in 2021, at a time of low interest rates and when they had little idea what the state of the economy would be in 2024. Not sure why they did that - much better to establish the Green Prosperity Plan and GB Energy as policies, the financing of which would be revealed at the time of the GE.

    By the time of the GE, the Tories will only be left with two attack lines:
    1. This happily married father doesn't know what a woman is (I think he does), and
    2. Starmer keeps changing his mind in the light of new evidence.

    The tories will almost certainly run a negative campaign against Starmer because what else do they have? Nothing.

    However, for a negative campaign to work it has to resonate with something the voters already suspect or feel. Attacks portraying Starmer as a lying chancer are just going to bounce off his heavily shellacked hair
    It is the only attack they have, but it is based in truth; he is a liar and a chancer, and there’s loads of video evidence of him at it, so it could work. The main problem is, he’s so dull it’s hard to believe he is the complete snide he is
    2 incidents yesterday make me pause in that assessment. Firstly, the outrage on behalf of the mother of Brianna Ghey was instant and genuine. He may have developed it later into politics but he was genuinely appalled. Secondly, it was noted that at the end of PMQs he immediately went up to Elliot Cockburn, who had disclosed his attempted suicide, to lend him support and comfort.

    Just 2 straws in the wind but for the moment I am willing to accept that Starmer is a genuinely decent man who doesn't seem to have fixed views on much other than he should be PM. I certainly don't think of him as a complete snide.
    I think this is where people misunderstand Starmer. Starmer is a "respect for the office if not the person" guy - he was a lawyer and that is drummed into them. To Starmer the things that are wrong with the country are wrong because the Tories and Corbyn have, in his mind, brought them into disrepute. His job, then, is to make these things reputable again.

    One of the things that many trans people have noted about this recent kerfuffle is a) it seems that it's fine to say transphobic dogwhistles when a murdered transgirl isn't a big news story and b) that the framing is all about respect for Brianna's mother and not the dignity of transpeople themselves. That's because, in the British discourse, transpeople are free to be disrespected; grieving mothers are not. So when the two come together, some people miss the marker.

    We can see this with the political left and right all the time. Concerns about immigration are always "concerns of real people". Concerns about austerity are always "concerns of left wing activists". This isn't because cuts were popular - it's because people who are deemed "left wing" in the UK are not really respectable political actors. Similar for people who liked Corbyn/ism - they are not deserving of respect in the political arena, according to those within the political milieu, so you can lie to them as much as you want.

    Hence Starmer. He ran to be Labour leader by appealing to the centre, by being the sensible man in the suit, and the left, by saying he would do Corbynism but sensibly and in a way your grandma would support. The thing is only centrists and the media are people worth respecting, so as soon as he won he had to defer to their needs and desires and not to the left any more. Transpeople and their rights is a great example of this - before all this Starmer only ever interacted with the transphobic side of this struggle; Mumsnetters, his transphobic MPs, talking about getting rid of Gillick and agreeing with the school guidance recently released. Now, in front of a grieving mother, he tries to walk this back.

    I remember listening to a podcast that described Starmer as a neo-Confucianist. That his entire platform is if we bring back respect of the institutions and the correct symbols and trappings of tradition, that everything will fix itself outside of the material reality we're in. I think that sums him up perfectly.
    It's much simpler to understand Starmer thus: He is a perfectly decent man and has the protean qualities required in real politics. He campaigned to be leader in a manner to win the membership vote, and will campaign in the GE in a manner to win the general public vote. They are different. Losing both of these campaigns is much much easier than winning them. He has a very decent chance of winning both.

    He will govern in accordance with the laws of political reality, things which neither the Labour membership, nor many voters are good at analysing.

    Oh yes; respect for institutions, based on their actual excellence and merits, would be most welcome.
    What are the laws of political reality? Because what I see is a country that has been starved of public sector funding for a very long time atrophying as it's essential public services become worse and the price of everything gets higher. And all the policies that would address that, which are actually somewhat popular with voters, being jettisoned out of some idea of what centrism is.
    Public spending as a percentage of GDP is higher than it was at any time while Tony Blair was PM.

    https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-key-questions/what-does-government-spend-money
    The proportion of people beyond working age is massively greater now though. Fewer working age people footing the bill for vastly greater health and social care demand. I'd be interested in seeing someone adjust spending and tax numbers for demographics.
    It’s easy to add population via immigration, but that can turn into a Ponzi scheme that simply gets worse and worse over time.

    The correct way to do it, from my own observations elsewhere, is to limit primary immigration to high salaries and needed jobs, which does appear to be happening slowly, but also to allow a number of other immigrants on a “guest worker” basis, strictly time limited, a version of which has been agreed with Australia.

    And no, students shouldn’t bring dependents, that’s the next big scandal and almost certainly an immigration scam running in countries such as Nigeria. Limit it to doctoral or post-doc studies.
    How is importing someone fully trained at 21 any different from someone having a baby, in terms of Ponzi-scheme-ness?

    I mean, I understand it from a population-mix perspective and a changing society one. But from a straight long-term dependency ratio basis, then a baby and an imported person are identical, except you don't need to pay for the schooling of the imported person.
    If you *permanently* import them at age 21, they work at minimum wage for 45 years and then claim a pension for 30 years, then they’re a massive net drain on the UK public purse over their lifetime.

    If you take a new 21-year-old on a two-year visa every two years, then as the population curve eases you can restrict immigration numbers further, with no effect not he public purse.

    This is how things work in my region, I’ll never be a citizen and never entitled to public support. If I’m rich, I can sponsor myself for long-term residence, but that’s on me, and I’ll need to be able to keep up the health insurance premiums.
    The most lucid and important comment of the day. It will either be ignored or denigrated
    The snowflakes and liberal halfwits would never countenance something so sensible.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,800

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Will Biden get 25th-ed? They are clearly struggling to conceal the fact that his brain is a piece of shit.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/caileygleeson/2024/02/08/biden-mixes-up-angela-merkel-with-dead-german-leader-in-second-slip-up-this-week/

    I mean, he should, but the problem will then be Kamala (who is shit, although would do better on Gaza per reporting) and then she'd have to pick a VP (which would cause its own problems). I think if he really is unable to be POTUS the Dems will allow this to go to the convention and stitch it up there - that's the only way to avoid a long bloody primary and condense that into like a day of bloody primary fighting. Tbf, the GOP may do the same if Trump is ineligible / in jail.
    Did you see the news about the Houthis sentencing 13 people to death for homosexuality?

    https://today.lorientlejour.com/article/1367225/13-sentenced-to-death-for-homosexuality-in-yemen-source.html
    No. That's bad, they shouldn't do that. I dislike the Houthis. On the other hand, the blockade they did was good. These can both be things I believe, because bad groups / parties / individuals can do good things.
    Firing drones at shipping is good? You have a weird morale compass.
    I had someone tell me, in all seriousness, that the Houthis failure to sink any of the ships they'd targeted proved that their actions were carefully calibrated to avoid causing too much harm.

    I think they genuinely believed that the Houthis were being more careful to avoid causing collateral damage than the US and UK were in their retaliatory strikes.
    These are the types that walk the streets
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,978

    Feels to me like SCOTUS are going to punt this. They’re going to say a state can’t keep a candidate off the ballot because they are ineligible. They will likely use the fact that Congress can remove the disability as a reason why they can’t. The wording of the amendment states that the person can’t “hold” office, not that they can’t run for office.

    If I’m right, they’ll actually leave a giant elephant in the room, because they’ll essentially be saying come back to us after the election, and we can decide if he can actually take office at that point.

    That would be insane. How on earth do you have an election in those circumstances. And would his VP then take office as President? I take it that you are getting this from the oral hearing today?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,978
    malcolmg said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Will Biden get 25th-ed? They are clearly struggling to conceal the fact that his brain is a piece of shit.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/caileygleeson/2024/02/08/biden-mixes-up-angela-merkel-with-dead-german-leader-in-second-slip-up-this-week/

    I mean, he should, but the problem will then be Kamala (who is shit, although would do better on Gaza per reporting) and then she'd have to pick a VP (which would cause its own problems). I think if he really is unable to be POTUS the Dems will allow this to go to the convention and stitch it up there - that's the only way to avoid a long bloody primary and condense that into like a day of bloody primary fighting. Tbf, the GOP may do the same if Trump is ineligible / in jail.
    Did you see the news about the Houthis sentencing 13 people to death for homosexuality?

    https://today.lorientlejour.com/article/1367225/13-sentenced-to-death-for-homosexuality-in-yemen-source.html
    No. That's bad, they shouldn't do that. I dislike the Houthis. On the other hand, the blockade they did was good. These can both be things I believe, because bad groups / parties / individuals can do good things.
    Firing drones at shipping is good? You have a weird morale compass.
    I had someone tell me, in all seriousness, that the Houthis failure to sink any of the ships they'd targeted proved that their actions were carefully calibrated to avoid causing too much harm.

    I think they genuinely believed that the Houthis were being more careful to avoid causing collateral damage than the US and UK were in their retaliatory strikes.
    These are the types that walk the streets
    And that is an indictment of the state of our mental health services.
  • AlsoLeiAlsoLei Posts: 609
    .

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    TimS said:

    148grss said:

    algarkirk said:

    148grss said:

    DavidL said:

    isam said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Starmer's remorseless pursuit of GE victory continues apace, as he dismantles step by step every potential attack line that can be pursued against him. Today it's the turn of the £28 billion sum for the Green Prosperity Plan.

    The mistake was, of course, putting a number on it back in 2021, at a time of low interest rates and when they had little idea what the state of the economy would be in 2024. Not sure why they did that - much better to establish the Green Prosperity Plan and GB Energy as policies, the financing of which would be revealed at the time of the GE.

    By the time of the GE, the Tories will only be left with two attack lines:
    1. This happily married father doesn't know what a woman is (I think he does), and
    2. Starmer keeps changing his mind in the light of new evidence.

    The tories will almost certainly run a negative campaign against Starmer because what else do they have? Nothing.

    However, for a negative campaign to work it has to resonate with something the voters already suspect or feel. Attacks portraying Starmer as a lying chancer are just going to bounce off his heavily shellacked hair
    It is the only attack they have, but it is based in truth; he is a liar and a chancer, and there’s loads of video evidence of him at it, so it could work. The main problem is, he’s so dull it’s hard to believe he is the complete snide he is
    2 incidents yesterday make me pause in that assessment. Firstly, the outrage on behalf of the mother of Brianna Ghey was instant and genuine. He may have developed it later into politics but he was genuinely appalled. Secondly, it was noted that at the end of PMQs he immediately went up to Elliot Cockburn, who had disclosed his attempted suicide, to lend him support and comfort.

    Just 2 straws in the wind but for the moment I am willing to accept that Starmer is a genuinely decent man who doesn't seem to have fixed views on much other than he should be PM. I certainly don't think of him as a complete snide.
    I think this is where people misunderstand Starmer. Starmer is a "respect for the office if not the person" guy - he was a lawyer and that is drummed into them. To Starmer the things that are wrong with the country are wrong because the Tories and Corbyn have, in his mind, brought them into disrepute. His job, then, is to make these things reputable again.

    One of the things that many trans people have noted about this recent kerfuffle is a) it seems that it's fine to say transphobic dogwhistles when a murdered transgirl isn't a big news story and b) that the framing is all about respect for Brianna's mother and not the dignity of transpeople themselves. That's because, in the British discourse, transpeople are free to be disrespected; grieving mothers are not. So when the two come together, some people miss the marker.

    We can see this with the political left and right all the time. Concerns about immigration are always "concerns of real people". Concerns about austerity are always "concerns of left wing activists". This isn't because cuts were popular - it's because people who are deemed "left wing" in the UK are not really respectable political actors. Similar for people who liked Corbyn/ism - they are not deserving of respect in the political arena, according to those within the political milieu, so you can lie to them as much as you want.

    Hence Starmer. He ran to be Labour leader by appealing to the centre, by being the sensible man in the suit, and the left, by saying he would do Corbynism but sensibly and in a way your grandma would support. The thing is only centrists and the media are people worth respecting, so as soon as he won he had to defer to their needs and desires and not to the left any more. Transpeople and their rights is a great example of this - before all this Starmer only ever interacted with the transphobic side of this struggle; Mumsnetters, his transphobic MPs, talking about getting rid of Gillick and agreeing with the school guidance recently released. Now, in front of a grieving mother, he tries to walk this back.

    I remember listening to a podcast that described Starmer as a neo-Confucianist. That his entire platform is if we bring back respect of the institutions and the correct symbols and trappings of tradition, that everything will fix itself outside of the material reality we're in. I think that sums him up perfectly.
    It's much simpler to understand Starmer thus: He is a perfectly decent man and has the protean qualities required in real politics. He campaigned to be leader in a manner to win the membership vote, and will campaign in the GE in a manner to win the general public vote. They are different. Losing both of these campaigns is much much easier than winning them. He has a very decent chance of winning both.

    He will govern in accordance with the laws of political reality, things which neither the Labour membership, nor many voters are good at analysing.

    Oh yes; respect for institutions, based on their actual excellence and merits, would be most welcome.
    What are the laws of political reality? Because what I see is a country that has been starved of public sector funding for a very long time atrophying as it's essential public services become worse and the price of everything gets higher. And all the policies that would address that, which are actually somewhat popular with voters, being jettisoned out of some idea of what centrism is.
    Public spending as a percentage of GDP is higher than it was at any time while Tony Blair was PM.

    https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-key-questions/what-does-government-spend-money
    The proportion of people beyond working age is massively greater now though. Fewer working age people footing the bill for vastly greater health and social care demand. I'd be interested in seeing someone adjust spending and tax numbers for demographics.
    It’s easy to add population via immigration, but that can turn into a Ponzi scheme that simply gets worse and worse over time.

    The correct way to do it, from my own observations elsewhere, is to limit primary immigration to high salaries and needed jobs, which does appear to be happening slowly, but also to allow a number of other immigrants on a “guest worker” basis, strictly time limited, a version of which has been agreed with Australia.

    And no, students shouldn’t bring dependents, that’s the next big scandal and almost certainly an immigration scam running in countries such as Nigeria. Limit it to doctoral or post-doc studies.
    How is importing someone fully trained at 21 any different from someone having a baby, in terms of Ponzi-scheme-ness?

    I mean, I understand it from a population-mix perspective and a changing society one. But from a straight long-term dependency ratio basis, then a baby and an imported person are identical, except you don't need to pay for the schooling of the imported person.
    It's a ponzi scheme in the sense that you need to keep on importing ever more people. It's not just a one-off fix to plug a demographic gap.
    But the structure of our economy assumes a continued increase in population! And that increase has to come from somewhere - if you don't keep on importing ever more people, you'd have to find some way to raise the birth rate. I suspect that that would be much, much more difficult (and expensive).

    The alternative would be to encourage people to emigrate on reaching retirement age - make receipt of a state pension conditional on moving elsewhere, for example. Either that or pursue some sort of dark green degrowth strategy. Neither seems particularly palatable.
This discussion has been closed.