The deeper we get into this Rishi Milliband interview the stroppier he gets. I really believe he believes he is doing a brilliant job, and that what he says is clear and incisive and will win people around.
What really winds him up is when people offer facts to counter his hopium. How dare you point out that having "cut the number of boats" the number is actually 25% more than last year. Or that having cut taxes that taxes are higher. Or that if Birmingham goping bankrupt proves you can't trust Labour then what does Woking say about the Tories.
Tories used to be rooted in reality. You might not like what we are doing, but here are the facts. Yes it hurt, yes it worked. Now its no it didn't hurt, aren't I brilliant, will you stop asking questions about it hurting.
Mr. Richard, additional inheritance tax on houses would be courageous, in the Yes, Minister sense.
"Can't afford a house? Now you can't afford to inherit one! Oh, you were living with your parents anyway? Guess you're evicted. We're very sorry for your loss."
"In 1997, the most common living arrangement for an adult aged between 18 and 34 was being in a couple with children, according to the Resolution Foundation think tank. Now, it is living with your parents."
About 4% of estates pay inheritance tax.
And many of those will be only be a few thousand on inheritances of hundreds of thousands.
Meanwhile people pay income tax and national insurance month after month, year after year, decade after decade, generation after generation.
The Sunday Rawnsley, via already warm and sunny Umbria:
The collapse of the Soviet Union was followed by a dramatic decline in military spending. The UK, which was consuming 4-5% of its GDP on defence in the final stretch of the confrontation with the USSR, now devotes a smidgeon over 2%. So Rishi Sunak is right – not a phrase I or anyone else writes very often – when he says that the UK needs to become more serious about protecting its security and vital national interests.
Both the Tory and Labour leaders say that defence spending needs to rise to 2.5% of GDP. Neither offer any guarantees about when this will happen and both are avoiding having a frank conversation with voters about the price of security. Those wanting to see the UK putting more into defence face several challenges. The first is the lack of public enthusiasm for the idea. The public will also need persuading that bucks for bangs will be used wisely. This will be hard because the Ministry of Defence has such an atrocious record of repeated and costly procurement failures.
It is an exaggeration to say that we will have to choose between being a welfare state and a warfare state. The UK was both during the Cold War. It is true to say that if defence spending is going to rise, something else will have to give. Absent a miraculous surge in growth, the fundamental choice will be either higher taxes (at a time when many voters think they are being taxed quite enough already, thank you) or less in the kitty for public services and social support (at a time when most voters think we need to be spending more on them).
Mr Sunak probably isn’t losing much sleep over that dilemma, because it is highly unlikely to be his problem for much longer. Sir Keir does have to worry about it, because this will almost certainly be landing in his lap like an unpinned hand grenade. To govern is to choose. To spend more on defence will mean choosing to spend less on things voters currently say they care about more...
...or to increase taxes, which is obviously what will happen.
On other people.
In reality increasing taxes on property is the only viable source.
Property of itself does not generate an income so taxes on domestic property either have to come out of people's income or savings or when property is transferred eg on sale or death. Property which is let is already taxed as income.
So how exactly is domestic property to be taxed? This is a genuine question BTW.
There is a lot of nominal wealth tied up in property but it is realisable on sale. So isn't that the obvious occasion on which to levy it? When the seller actually has the cash and the actual value is recorded and known to the government?
In Japan we have Fixed Asset Tax which is 1.4% of the value of land and property (assessed according to a slightly mysterious formula). It's not much from the point of someone living in a house or actively using the property, but if you want to either leave a place unused or treat it as an investment it adds up to quite a bit over the years.
Apparently this tax is one of the reasons why it's so easy to park in Tokyo, because if a bit of land is going to be empty, even only for a few months, the owner will plop a car park on it which yields just enough to cover the tax.
Mr. Richard, that's true, but the fear of being hit with extra inheritance tax on a house (both things are emotive as well as potentially highly costly) will be significant. Not to mention politicians tend to add or increase taxes.
And the fact houses are already difficult to afford for many will only increase concerns and the political cost.
Labour triple lock promise. Inevitable, I think, but will draw the ire of lots of working age commentators.
I think they've missed an opportunity to do something more creative. They could have promised a one off hike in the pension followed by a return to indexing to wages.
Pensioners are ruthless when it comes to voting for their own interests . The triple lock polls well even amongst younger people. No party will ditch the triple lock unless there was a cross party decision to do so . The Tories will never agree to that as their pensioner vote is the only thing stopping them from being totally wiped out .
And this is why changing the occupant in no 10 will not see the real and necessary change to group think
The triple lock delivery to wealthy pensioners is just wrong and very costly.
Add in the need for defence spending rising to 2.5%, the need for social care which parties are in denial, the needs for the NHS and education then taxes have to rise including on property
There won’t be any change to the triple lock unless all the parties agreed to that . Your position as a pensioner is nice to see but it’s now become a political football . If Labour ditched the triple lock they would suffer at the polls and just couldn’t risk it .
As a pensioner in a similar position to Big G I would just point out that the income tax I pay on my sundry pensions has increased.
The Scottish Green Party is in a state of open civil war this weekend with party loyalists and rebels launching brutal attacks on each other.
Rebels have demanded co-leaders Patrick Harvie and Lorna Slater go and there’s also been calls for the deselection of all Green MSPs. One rebel said: “I’d be very worried if I was at the top of the party.”
The Scottish Green Party is in a state of open civil war this weekend with party loyalists and rebels launching brutal attacks on each other.
Rebels have demanded co-leaders Patrick Harvie and Lorna Slater go and there’s also been calls for the deselection of all Green MSPs. One rebel said: “I’d be very worried if I was at the top of the party.”
The Sunday Rawnsley, via already warm and sunny Umbria:
The collapse of the Soviet Union was followed by a dramatic decline in military spending. The UK, which was consuming 4-5% of its GDP on defence in the final stretch of the confrontation with the USSR, now devotes a smidgeon over 2%. So Rishi Sunak is right – not a phrase I or anyone else writes very often – when he says that the UK needs to become more serious about protecting its security and vital national interests.
Both the Tory and Labour leaders say that defence spending needs to rise to 2.5% of GDP. Neither offer any guarantees about when this will happen and both are avoiding having a frank conversation with voters about the price of security. Those wanting to see the UK putting more into defence face several challenges. The first is the lack of public enthusiasm for the idea. The public will also need persuading that bucks for bangs will be used wisely. This will be hard because the Ministry of Defence has such an atrocious record of repeated and costly procurement failures.
It is an exaggeration to say that we will have to choose between being a welfare state and a warfare state. The UK was both during the Cold War. It is true to say that if defence spending is going to rise, something else will have to give. Absent a miraculous surge in growth, the fundamental choice will be either higher taxes (at a time when many voters think they are being taxed quite enough already, thank you) or less in the kitty for public services and social support (at a time when most voters think we need to be spending more on them).
Mr Sunak probably isn’t losing much sleep over that dilemma, because it is highly unlikely to be his problem for much longer. Sir Keir does have to worry about it, because this will almost certainly be landing in his lap like an unpinned hand grenade. To govern is to choose. To spend more on defence will mean choosing to spend less on things voters currently say they care about more...
...or to increase taxes, which is obviously what will happen.
On other people.
In reality increasing taxes on property is the only viable source.
Property of itself does not generate an income so taxes on domestic property either have to come out of people's income or savings or when property is transferred eg on sale or death. Property which is let is already taxed as income.
So how exactly is domestic property to be taxed? This is a genuine question BTW.
Property does not generate income - leaving aside the £7500 a year tax free you can get under the rent-a-room allowance and anything similar, and anything else you rent out, such as further rooms, your Motorhome as an AirBNB etc - but it *does* generate tax free unearned wealth.
This is especially the case in the UK where housing wealth is a tax-loophole market-distorting fetish. I'd point to the need to make use of housing more efficient (what was it - 28,000,000 second spare bedrooms in the OO sector?), especially around people rattling around in large houses for tax reasons - such as holding on for many years for IHT exemptions to avoid paying some Stamp Duty. And also to the need to create a less distorted market.
Downsizing earlier is far more rational, and needs to be incentivised alongside living in right-sized homes.
So I'd go for two, maybe three, things:
1 - For the unearned wealth, wealth taxes on transfer. That could be an element of CGT, and a more rational iHT allowances / setup.
2 - I'd switch to an approx. 0.5% property-value tax to replace Council Tax. I've argued before for the Proportional Property Tax, which includes abolition of Stamp Duty in the package - which would remove a further distortion from the market.
3 - I'm also attracted to the Swiss idea of a low starting (say 0.1% of per-cent at the low end), but widely-based wealth tax, on property. Perhaps in the UK applying to a large majority of properties.
But TBF there is a bit of an overlap between 2 and 3.
Labour triple lock promise. Inevitable, I think, but will draw the ire of lots of working age commentators.
I think they've missed an opportunity to do something more creative. They could have promised a one off hike in the pension followed by a return to indexing to wages.
Pensioners are ruthless when it comes to voting for their own interests . The triple lock polls well even amongst younger people. No party will ditch the triple lock unless there was a cross party decision to do so . The Tories will never agree to that as their pensioner vote is the only thing stopping them from being totally wiped out .
And this is why changing the occupant in no 10 will not see the real and necessary change to group think
The triple lock delivery to wealthy pensioners is just wrong and very costly.
Add in the need for defence spending rising to 2.5%, the need for social care which parties are in denial, the needs for the NHS and education then taxes have to rise including on property
The triple lock can't carry on forever, sure.
But equally, means testing the state pension creates bad consequences; why bother saving if the government is going to claw back your prudence? So the basic pension really ought to be a basic, frugal but liveable amount, which means moving it up from where it is now. Doing that gradually is the point of the TL.
I reckon that points to two things. First, those of us fortunate enough to have other pension income shouldn't have quite so favourable tax treatment. Shifting from NI to income tax rates does that, though the Sunak-Hunt policy of cutting NI rates by freezing IT thresholds doesn't do it as well. Second, the debate needs to be "what's the threshold for changing the Triple Lock?", not whether to axe it now.
Besides, if anything with pensions is going to stick politically, it needs a long run in. Ten years time, maybe?
The Sunday Rawnsley, via already warm and sunny Umbria:
Mr Sunak probably isn’t losing much sleep over that dilemma, because it is highly unlikely to be his problem for much longer. Sir Keir does have to worry about it, because this will almost certainly be landing in his lap like an unpinned hand grenade. To govern is to choose. To spend more on defence will mean choosing to spend less on things voters currently say they care about more.
To me spending targets of 2.5% on defence or 0.7% on Aid are wrongly set.
Sure our depleted armed forces have been run down badly by the current government, and are lumbered with multiple white elephant projects, so I am open to spending more on them. It should be directed though at what threats we face and what equipment and personnel we need in order to counter those threats, not some number plucked from the air.
The difference between top down and bottom up budget setting.
Always infuriating when you carefully cost out a programme of work, with hours carefully estimated for each task, only for someone to respond that the client only wants to spend £X, so we need to pitch just below that.
Mind, with mo knowledge of the top down figure it is possible to be embarrassingly way off the mark.
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
Personal post. Exactly a year ago today my firm, a venerable institution that had been doing badly over a few years, sold its assets to another firm that gazumped a private investor that it had been preparing to sell to over a number of weeks. I had been working on employment aspects of this transaction for some time and was taken aback by the suddenness of the decision to a firm that had come in at the very last minute. Nevertheless, I was relieved, all jobs saved, clients' interests protected, job done, on with the next thing. Four months later it emerges that the sole owner of owner of the firm that had bought us had done so using the funds from his own firm's client account. As a result I resigned and managed to find new jobs for nearly all my team at another firm in the City. I got off lightly.
The owner of the firm that bought us, Pragnesh Modhwadia, admits using his client's funds to buy my firm and another law firm, has been suspended by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and is under investigation by the SFO. He was the 100% owner of his firm, he acted as its Compliance Officer for Legal Practice, Head of Finance and Administration, and Money Laundering Reporting Officer.
The firm he founded as a one man conveyancing practice some years earlier, Axiom Stone) had no experience whatsoever of the type of law my firm practiced in the City. The SRA not only allowed the takeover it actively encouraged it by threatening my firm with intervention if it did not get the client files out of our financially distressed environment ASAP. As a result of that hundreds of clients who had money in the firm have lost that money, dozens of people remain out of work, and the SRA is proposing adding £500 to the cost of a practicing certificate of every single solicitor in England and Wales. This need not have happened with respect to my old firm. Other parties were interested.
Why was one man allowed to have so much control over so much client money in such a large firm? The ownership structure of the Axiom entity had not changed since Modhwadia founded it above a greengrocers in Edgware. How was that structure supposed to manage a multinational top 100 firm with expertise in shipping and insurance law? While historically one person has been able to properly run small law firms, this was not a small law firm.
I guess my point here is that nothing seems to operate properly anymore. Its more than law, its culture. The rot at the SRA is not unique to that organisation, it seems to exist in every organisation that's designed to oversee our behaviour, from the Met onwards.
That sounds similar in type to a couple of cases written about by the late Anna Raccoon, for whom I used to contribute. I won't mention any particulars here, out of respect for the blood pressure of OGHM .
“Actually the source of the crisis, as I understand it, is Martin Geissler.”
Alex Salmond thinks @mmgeissler’s interview with Patrick Harvie, in which Harvie refused to accept the scientific validity of the Cass Report, was the catalyst for the past week’s events. #BBCSundayShow
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
On so many levels the Rwanda policy is disgusting, not least Government allowing themselves to legally judge black to be white.and vice versa. The expense is also mind blowing.
If the Daily Mail says it is working it is working.
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
No, it is an affront to humanity and an abrogation of our commitments to aid refugees. You might (might?) have a case if successful applicants were returned to the UK from Rwanda after processing. But the fact that even if you are a genuine asylum seeker and found to be so you will not be allowed to return to the UK but forced to stay in a country with a recent history of genocide and civil war - exactly the sorts of situations many of these asylum seekers are fleeing in the first place - means that this is a system which destroys any claims the UK might have to be upholding their international commitments.
Anyone supporting this scheme is really just admitting they don't want Britain playing any part in the asylum system. They are as bad as the MAGA fanatics in the US.
The Sunday Rawnsley, via already warm and sunny Umbria:
The collapse of the Soviet Union was followed by a dramatic decline in military spending. The UK, which was consuming 4-5% of its GDP on defence in the final stretch of the confrontation with the USSR, now devotes a smidgeon over 2%. So Rishi Sunak is right – not a phrase I or anyone else writes very often – when he says that the UK needs to become more serious about protecting its security and vital national interests.
Both the Tory and Labour leaders say that defence spending needs to rise to 2.5% of GDP. Neither offer any guarantees about when this will happen and both are avoiding having a frank conversation with voters about the price of security. Those wanting to see the UK putting more into defence face several challenges. The first is the lack of public enthusiasm for the idea. The public will also need persuading that bucks for bangs will be used wisely. This will be hard because the Ministry of Defence has such an atrocious record of repeated and costly procurement failures.
It is an exaggeration to say that we will have to choose between being a welfare state and a warfare state. The UK was both during the Cold War. It is true to say that if defence spending is going to rise, something else will have to give. Absent a miraculous surge in growth, the fundamental choice will be either higher taxes (at a time when many voters think they are being taxed quite enough already, thank you) or less in the kitty for public services and social support (at a time when most voters think we need to be spending more on them).
Mr Sunak probably isn’t losing much sleep over that dilemma, because it is highly unlikely to be his problem for much longer. Sir Keir does have to worry about it, because this will almost certainly be landing in his lap like an unpinned hand grenade. To govern is to choose. To spend more on defence will mean choosing to spend less on things voters currently say they care about more...
...or to increase taxes, which is obviously what will happen.
On other people.
In reality increasing taxes on property is the only viable source.
Property of itself does not generate an income so taxes on domestic property either have to come out of people's income or savings or when property is transferred eg on sale or death. Property which is let is already taxed as income.
So how exactly is domestic property to be taxed? This is a genuine question BTW.
Remove the CGT exemption on "own home" sales.
Isn't that what the USA does, even for citizens living abroad? When Mr and Mrs Boris Johnson sold their Islington house to move to a larger one he was stung for CGT by the IRS thanks to his being born in NYC.
Personal post. Exactly a year ago today my firm, a venerable institution that had been doing badly over a few years, sold its assets to another firm that gazumped a private investor that it had been preparing to sell to over a number of weeks. I had been working on employment aspects of this transaction for some time and was taken aback by the suddenness of the decision to a firm that had come in at the very last minute. Nevertheless, I was relieved, all jobs saved, clients' interests protected, job done, on with the next thing. Four months later it emerges that the sole owner of owner of the firm that had bought us had done so using the funds from his own firm's client account. As a result I resigned and managed to find new jobs for nearly all my team at another firm in the City. I got off lightly.
The owner of the firm that bought us, Pragnesh Modhwadia, admits using his client's funds to buy my firm and another law firm, has been suspended by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and is under investigation by the SFO. He was the 100% owner of his firm, he acted as its Compliance Officer for Legal Practice, Head of Finance and Administration, and Money Laundering Reporting Officer.
The firm he founded as a one man conveyancing practice some years earlier, Axiom Stone) had no experience whatsoever of the type of law my firm practiced in the City. The SRA not only allowed the takeover it actively encouraged it by threatening my firm with intervention if it did not get the client files out of our financially distressed environment ASAP. As a result of that hundreds of clients who had money in the firm have lost that money, dozens of people remain out of work, and the SRA is proposing adding £500 to the cost of a practicing certificate of every single solicitor in England and Wales. This need not have happened with respect to my old firm. Other parties were interested.
Why was one man allowed to have so much control over so much client money in such a large firm? The ownership structure of the Axiom entity had not changed since Modhwadia founded it above a greengrocers in Edgware. How was that structure supposed to manage a multinational top 100 firm with expertise in shipping and insurance law? While historically one person has been able to properly run small law firms, this was not a small law firm.
I guess my point here is that nothing seems to operate properly anymore. Its more than law, its culture. The rot at the SRA is not unique to that organisation, it seems to exist in every organisation that's designed to oversee our behaviour, from the Met onwards.
It's the fallacy of passing ever more laws. We pass legislation to curb the behaviour of a small percentage of the population who will commit crime. This inconveniences the large majority of citizens who are by and large honest. However the law wont stop the criminals as they will ignore it.
Labour triple lock promise. Inevitable, I think, but will draw the ire of lots of working age commentators.
I think they've missed an opportunity to do something more creative. They could have promised a one off hike in the pension followed by a return to indexing to wages.
Pensioners are ruthless when it comes to voting for their own interests . The triple lock polls well even amongst younger people. No party will ditch the triple lock unless there was a cross party decision to do so . The Tories will never agree to that as their pensioner vote is the only thing stopping them from being totally wiped out .
And this is why changing the occupant in no 10 will not see the real and necessary change to group think
The triple lock delivery to wealthy pensioners is just wrong and very costly.
Add in the need for defence spending rising to 2.5%, the need for social care which parties are in denial, the needs for the NHS and education then taxes have to rise including on property
The triple lock can't carry on forever, sure.
But equally, means testing the state pension creates bad consequences; why bother saving if the government is going to claw back your prudence? So the basic pension really ought to be a basic, frugal but liveable amount, which means moving it up from where it is now. Doing that gradually is the point of the TL.
I reckon that points to two things. First, those of us fortunate enough to have other pension income shouldn't have quite so favourable tax treatment. Shifting from NI to income tax rates does that, though the Sunak-Hunt policy of cutting NI rates by freezing IT thresholds doesn't do it as well. Second, the debate needs to be "what's the threshold for changing the Triple Lock?", not whether to axe it now.
Besides, if anything with pensions is going to stick politically, it needs a long run in. Ten years time, maybe?
My preference is for a more universal state pension, based on NI record as now, and somewhat heavier taxation on non-state-pension income. That could be via a specific tax or the normal progressive tax system.
That tips the bias towards the poor, which is as it should be.
One of things that interests me about the Triple Lock is the never ending amount of squealing it has generated, in response to what is actually a very small impact. The last time I checked the benefits of more than a decade of the Triple Lock on state pension was around £10-20 per week on state pension over what it would be otherwise.
He should have ruled it out hereafter. There would have been time for such a word Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow... He, as 'tis thought, by self and violent hands Took off his political career.
Hurrah, somebody spotted my subtle Macbeth reference.
At the moment, the challenge would be not to see them.
But that can never be. Who can impress the forest, bid the tree unfix his earth-bound root?
He’s saving “no man of woman born” for the next trans thread.
I thought it came from "Blade Runner 2049"! I am now educated, thank you.
“Actually the source of the crisis, as I understand it, is Martin Geissler.”
Alex Salmond thinks @mmgeissler’s interview with Patrick Harvie, in which Harvie refused to accept the scientific validity of the Cass Report, was the catalyst for the past week’s events. #BBCSundayShow
The Scottish Green Party is in a state of open civil war this weekend with party loyalists and rebels launching brutal attacks on each other.
Rebels have demanded co-leaders Patrick Harvie and Lorna Slater go and there’s also been calls for the deselection of all Green MSPs. One rebel said: “I’d be very worried if I was at the top of the party.”
The Scottish Green Party is in a state of open civil war this weekend with party loyalists and rebels launching brutal attacks on each other.
Rebels have demanded co-leaders Patrick Harvie and Lorna Slater go and there’s also been calls for the deselection of all Green MSPs. One rebel said: “I’d be very worried if I was at the top of the party.”
"In 1997, the most common living arrangement for an adult aged between 18 and 34 was being in a couple with children, according to the Resolution Foundation think tank. Now, it is living with your parents."
The boomers really, really, really, really have fucked up their grandchildren. This will only be resolved when they die. But until then Governments will chase boomer votes to the detriment of everybody else
I’m not sure most of the public actually understand that the Rwanda scheme isn’t offshore processing, it’s a one way ticket. For that reason it is completely beyond the pale.
If it did work as a deterrent (which evidence suggests it won’t) and was more affordable, it would of course present Labour with a moral dilemma. One which I suspect would see political considerations trumping morals.
The Sunday Rawnsley, via already warm and sunny Umbria:
The collapse of the Soviet Union was followed by a dramatic decline in military spending. The UK, which was consuming 4-5% of its GDP on defence in the final stretch of the confrontation with the USSR, now devotes a smidgeon over 2%. So Rishi Sunak is right – not a phrase I or anyone else writes very often – when he says that the UK needs to become more serious about protecting its security and vital national interests.
Both the Tory and Labour leaders say that defence spending needs to rise to 2.5% of GDP. Neither offer any guarantees about when this will happen and both are avoiding having a frank conversation with voters about the price of security. Those wanting to see the UK putting more into defence face several challenges. The first is the lack of public enthusiasm for the idea. The public will also need persuading that bucks for bangs will be used wisely. This will be hard because the Ministry of Defence has such an atrocious record of repeated and costly procurement failures.
It is an exaggeration to say that we will have to choose between being a welfare state and a warfare state. The UK was both during the Cold War. It is true to say that if defence spending is going to rise, something else will have to give. Absent a miraculous surge in growth, the fundamental choice will be either higher taxes (at a time when many voters think they are being taxed quite enough already, thank you) or less in the kitty for public services and social support (at a time when most voters think we need to be spending more on them).
Mr Sunak probably isn’t losing much sleep over that dilemma, because it is highly unlikely to be his problem for much longer. Sir Keir does have to worry about it, because this will almost certainly be landing in his lap like an unpinned hand grenade. To govern is to choose. To spend more on defence will mean choosing to spend less on things voters currently say they care about more...
...or to increase taxes, which is obviously what will happen.
On other people.
In reality increasing taxes on property is the only viable source.
Property of itself does not generate an income so taxes on domestic property either have to come out of people's income or savings or when property is transferred eg on sale or death. Property which is let is already taxed as income.
So how exactly is domestic property to be taxed? This is a genuine question BTW.
Remove the CGT exemption on "own home" sales.
Isn't that what the USA does, even for citizens living abroad? When Mr and Mrs Boris Johnson sold their Islington house to move to a larger one he was stung for CGT by the IRS thanks to his being born in NYC.
Though I'm not sure that his renunciation of USA citizenship will help his championing of Mr Chump, who Laura K reported him expressing support for on the BBC this morning.
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
No, it is an affront to humanity and an abrogation of our commitments to aid refugees. You might (might?) have a case if successful applicants were returned to the UK from Rwanda after processing. But the fact that even if you are a genuine asylum seeker and found to be so you will not be allowed to return to the UK but forced to stay in a country with a recent history of genocide and civil war - exactly the sorts of situations many of these asylum seekers are fleeing in the first place - means that this is a system which destroys any claims the UK might have to be upholding their international commitments.
Anyone supporting this scheme is really just admitting they don't want Britain playing any part in the asylum system. They are as bad as the MAGA fanatics in the US.
the thing that would 'stop the boats' which the Tories can't propose, and Labour don't seem to be able to propose at the moment, is providing safe and legal means for people to get to the UK.
There's a lot of people currently already in France who want to come to the UK, set up a processing centre in France to deal with them there. it's not going to act as a 'draw' because the system is already doing that. you're not going to stop people trying to get here so deal with them before they try to get here.
I’m not sure most of the public actually understand that the Rwanda scheme isn’t offshore processing, it’s a one way ticket. For that reason it is completely beyond the pale.
If it did work as a deterrent (which evidence suggests it won’t) and was more affordable, it would of course present Labour with a moral dilemma. One which I suspect would see political considerations trumping morals.
It's only a one way ticket if none of people who risked life and limb traveling to the UK in the first place decide they don't want to try again
...I guess my point here is that nothing seems to operate properly anymore. Its more than law, its culture. The rot at the SRA is not unique to that organisation, it seems to exist in every organisation that's designed to oversee our behaviour, from the Met onwards...
I agree with you @DougSeal. I can make several guesses as to cause. But I don't know what the solution is. I'm sorry...
That or “never invite the Scottish Greens into government.”
Lorna Slater emphatic on Sunday Show that Humza Yousaf is dead to her and only a new FM can get her approval. Lesson for other parties and future governments: don't f*** with the Scottish Greens
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
"the libs hate it" is just about all there is left though.
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
As previously said, it can both be disgusting and not work at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive.
It’s like opposition to the death penalty: it’s disgusting and it doesn’t work.
You keep saying that those opposed to the Rwanda scheme favour open borders. The current Conservative government has overseen record high immigration, the highest it’s been since at least World War 2. It’s Sunak who appears to be in favour of open borders. We took back control and this is the level of immigration that the Tories have chosen.
The Sunday Rawnsley, via already warm and sunny Umbria:
The collapse of the Soviet Union was followed by a dramatic decline in military spending. The UK, which was consuming 4-5% of its GDP on defence in the final stretch of the confrontation with the USSR, now devotes a smidgeon over 2%. So Rishi Sunak is right – not a phrase I or anyone else writes very often – when he says that the UK needs to become more serious about protecting its security and vital national interests.
Both the Tory and Labour leaders say that defence spending needs to rise to 2.5% of GDP. Neither offer any guarantees about when this will happen and both are avoiding having a frank conversation with voters about the price of security. Those wanting to see the UK putting more into defence face several challenges. The first is the lack of public enthusiasm for the idea. The public will also need persuading that bucks for bangs will be used wisely. This will be hard because the Ministry of Defence has such an atrocious record of repeated and costly procurement failures.
It is an exaggeration to say that we will have to choose between being a welfare state and a warfare state. The UK was both during the Cold War. It is true to say that if defence spending is going to rise, something else will have to give. Absent a miraculous surge in growth, the fundamental choice will be either higher taxes (at a time when many voters think they are being taxed quite enough already, thank you) or less in the kitty for public services and social support (at a time when most voters think we need to be spending more on them).
Mr Sunak probably isn’t losing much sleep over that dilemma, because it is highly unlikely to be his problem for much longer. Sir Keir does have to worry about it, because this will almost certainly be landing in his lap like an unpinned hand grenade. To govern is to choose. To spend more on defence will mean choosing to spend less on things voters currently say they care about more...
...or to increase taxes, which is obviously what will happen.
On other people.
In reality increasing taxes on property is the only viable source.
Property of itself does not generate an income so taxes on domestic property either have to come out of people's income or savings or when property is transferred eg on sale or death. Property which is let is already taxed as income.
So how exactly is domestic property to be taxed? This is a genuine question BTW.
Property does not generate income - leaving aside the £7500 a year tax free you can get under the rent-a-room allowance and anything similar, and anything else you rent out, such as further rooms, your Motorhome as an AirBNB etc - but it *does* generate tax free unearned wealth.
This is especially the case in the UK where housing wealth is a tax-loophole market-distorting fetish. I'd point to the need to make use of housing more efficient (what was it - 28,000,000 second spare bedrooms in the OO sector?), especially around people rattling around in large houses for tax reasons - such as holding on for many years for IHT exemptions to avoid paying some Stamp Duty. And also to the need to create a less distorted market.
Downsizing earlier is far more rational, and needs to be incentivised alongside living in right-sized homes.
So I'd go for two, maybe three, things:
1 - For the unearned wealth, wealth taxes on transfer. That could be an element of CGT, and a more rational iHT allowances / setup.
2 - I'd switch to an approx. 0.5% property-value tax to replace Council Tax. I've argued before for the Proportional Property Tax, which includes abolition of Stamp Duty in the package - which would remove a further distortion from the market.
3 - I'm also attracted to the Swiss idea of a low starting (say 0.1% of per-cent at the low end), but widely-based wealth tax, on property. Perhaps in the UK applying to a large majority of properties.
But TBF there is a bit of an overlap between 2 and 3.
I can see all sorts of problems with property/wealth tax in the way you describe.
Firstly if you are expecting it to replace council tax then you are going to throw up all sorts of anomalies and also find that in much of the country it is raising less tax than existing council tax.
In my 50s I am fortunate enough to be living in a house (still with a mortgage) currently valued at around 600K. It is in a part of the country where 600K buys you a lot of house and a good slice of land. I pay around £4000 a year in Council tax so your suggestion would actually reduce what I paid by £1000 a year. And yet someone living in a much smaller house in London or the SE valued at the same amount could see their new tax being twice or more what they currently pay in Council tax.
Moreover what is wealth? Most countries like Norway which have a wealth tax only include the value of the property minus any outstanding mortgage. After all that bit is not actually yours. If you try that here as a replacement for Council tax you are going to find yourself with a massive shortfall in many parts of the country.
And taxing people when they sell under CGT is only going to make people hang on longer. No one likes paying huge sums of money to the Government so on its own a CGT scheme would make people less likely to downsize rather than more.
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
No, it is an affront to humanity and an abrogation of our commitments to aid refugees. You might (might?) have a case if successful applicants were returned to the UK from Rwanda after processing. But the fact that even if you are a genuine asylum seeker and found to be so you will not be allowed to return to the UK but forced to stay in a country with a recent history of genocide and civil war - exactly the sorts of situations many of these asylum seekers are fleeing in the first place - means that this is a system which destroys any claims the UK might have to be upholding their international commitments.
Anyone supporting this scheme is really just admitting they don't want Britain playing any part in the asylum system. They are as bad as the MAGA fanatics in the US.
the thing that would 'stop the boats' which the Tories can't propose, and Labour don't seem to be able to propose at the moment, is providing safe and legal means for people to get to the UK.
There's a lot of people currently already in France who want to come to the UK, set up a processing centre in France to deal with them there. it's not going to act as a 'draw' because the system is already doing that. you're not going to stop people trying to get here so deal with them before they try to get here.
This is exactly the way we should be doing things.
“Actually the source of the crisis, as I understand it, is Martin Geissler.”
Alex Salmond thinks @mmgeissler’s interview with Patrick Harvie, in which Harvie refused to accept the scientific validity of the Cass Report, was the catalyst for the past week’s events. #BBCSundayShow
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
Nobody is terrified that it could work. Nobody looking at it - including the Home Office machine who will run it - think it will work. With evidence.
So on one side we have Tory hopium. And on the other side, reality.
Until the Tories accept that reality is reality, they will lose.
Come on, admit it RP, every morning you break out into cold sweats with fear that the brilliant Rwanda scheme is going to stop refugees reaching our shores, and if that happened how would you possibly cope.
It is ok and perfectly understandable to be terrified of such an event, no need for the fake bravado.
I guess it depends what you mean by "work". Will it deter some people from coming? Almost certainly, who wants to go to Rwanda, a poor country with a bad human rights record. Will it have a measurable impact on small boat arrivals? Maybe, it depends on what else is happening at the same time. Will it slow arrivals to a trickle? Almost certainly not, as most people who come won't be sent to Rwanda and people are already willing to risk death, a far worse outcome. Personally, my main objection to this scheme is that it's immoral. A secondary objection is that it's a waste of precious taxpayers' money. My objection isn't that it won't "work", however that's defined.
"In 1997, the most common living arrangement for an adult aged between 18 and 34 was being in a couple with children, according to the Resolution Foundation think tank. Now, it is living with your parents."
The boomers really, really, really, really have fucked up their grandchildren. This will only be resolved when they die. But until then Governments will chase boomer votes to the detriment of everybody else
It is intersting you pick out one group (of which I should add I am not a member) for criticism and fucking things up when in fact they were the one group that were the 'odd ones out' historically. Their parents and grandparents would have lived in exactly the sorts of arrangments we are now seeing a return to with multigenerational families living together and most peple renting rather than owning their own homes. Perhaps that is the only really sustainable system in the long term.
That or “never invite the Scottish Greens into government.”
Lorna Slater emphatic on Sunday Show that Humza Yousaf is dead to her and only a new FM can get her approval. Lesson for other parties and future governments: don't f*** with the Scottish Greens
Or "don't go into government with the SNP"? That's the lesson that the LD's (and the DUP to a lesser degree) learned with respect to the Tories the hard way.
That or “never invite the Scottish Greens into government.”
Lorna Slater emphatic on Sunday Show that Humza Yousaf is dead to her and only a new FM can get her approval. Lesson for other parties and future governments: don't f*** with the Scottish Greens
Vg news that new NHS constitution will be clear hospitals cannot unlawfully discriminate against women eg by allowing males who identify as women on women-only wards. Hope @VictoriaAtkins will also have a word with @NHSConfed about its unlawful guidance….
It is important to say that this is simply bringing the NHS Constitution *in line with the law*. Its existing guidance on single-sex wards leaves hospitals open to being sued. As does the @NHSConfed guidance eg on single-sex care.
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
No, it is an affront to humanity and an abrogation of our commitments to aid refugees. You might (might?) have a case if successful applicants were returned to the UK from Rwanda after processing. But the fact that even if you are a genuine asylum seeker and found to be so you will not be allowed to return to the UK but forced to stay in a country with a recent history of genocide and civil war - exactly the sorts of situations many of these asylum seekers are fleeing in the first place - means that this is a system which destroys any claims the UK might have to be upholding their international commitments.
Anyone supporting this scheme is really just admitting they don't want Britain playing any part in the asylum system. They are as bad as the MAGA fanatics in the US.
the thing that would 'stop the boats' which the Tories can't propose, and Labour don't seem to be able to propose at the moment, is providing safe and legal means for people to get to the UK.
There's a lot of people currently already in France who want to come to the UK, set up a processing centre in France to deal with them there. it's not going to act as a 'draw' because the system is already doing that. you're not going to stop people trying to get here so deal with them before they try to get here.
The fly in the ointment with the processing centre in France is that you have to build a processing centre in France. If you build a processing centre in France it will be a giant magnet for migrants and so no mayor worth their sash is going to allow it to be in their commune.
Its bad enough for the people of the Calais region but if you open a processing centre then not only do you get the people who are trying for a boat but you add in the people who might think they’ve got a chance through official channels.
When and why did Alex Salmond become so unpopular ?
I can understand why Unionists never liked him but the way Nationalists have changed their opinion of him seems somewhat Orwellian.
Part of it could be described as Orwellian insofar as control of the media is traditionally considered integral to that much abused term. The BBC and assorted elements of the right wing press moved from smacking their lips and doing their wrists a mischief over the expected demise of Salmond because they thought it would damage indy to holding him up as the new Dreyfus by the time of the Holyrood enquiry because they thought it would damage indy. Unwisely Salmond embraced that unholy alliance of rightwing Unionists, the state broadcaster, the Tele, the Speccie, David Davies, Brillo and PB randoms (ok, not the last one), he became their guy. Aside from the loonies it attracted, it’s one of the reasons ALBA aka the Alex Salmond Party hasn’t manage to get a single rep elected, not even a councillor.
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
As previously said, it can both be disgusting and not work at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive.
It’s like opposition to the death penalty: it’s disgusting and it doesn’t work.
You keep saying that those opposed to the Rwanda scheme favour open borders. The current Conservative government has overseen record high immigration, the highest it’s been since at least World War 2. It’s Sunak who appears to be in favour of open borders. We took back control and this is the level of immigration that the Tories have chosen.
It is like telepathy. I was going to post your first two paras. And if course even if proved wrong and the death penalty did prove effective as a deterrent, it still would not be moral. Same goes for Rwanda. In the unlikely event of it working it still wouldn't be right.
Plus:
The huge cost involved and the bizarre fiasco of passing a laws stating that a variable like the safety of somewhere is safe, regardless, is a bit like that US state that almost passed a law defined Pi as being 3.0. Bonkers.
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
No, it is an affront to humanity and an abrogation of our commitments to aid refugees. You might (might?) have a case if successful applicants were returned to the UK from Rwanda after processing. But the fact that even if you are a genuine asylum seeker and found to be so you will not be allowed to return to the UK but forced to stay in a country with a recent history of genocide and civil war - exactly the sorts of situations many of these asylum seekers are fleeing in the first place - means that this is a system which destroys any claims the UK might have to be upholding their international commitments.
Anyone supporting this scheme is really just admitting they don't want Britain playing any part in the asylum system. They are as bad as the MAGA fanatics in the US.
the thing that would 'stop the boats' which the Tories can't propose, and Labour don't seem to be able to propose at the moment, is providing safe and legal means for people to get to the UK.
There's a lot of people currently already in France who want to come to the UK, set up a processing centre in France to deal with them there. it's not going to act as a 'draw' because the system is already doing that. you're not going to stop people trying to get here so deal with them before they try to get here.
The fly in the ointment with the processing centre in France is that you have to build a processing centre in France. If you build a processing centre in France it will be a giant magnet for migrants and so no mayor worth their sash is going to allow it to be in their commune.
Its bad enough for the people of the Calais region but if you open a processing centre then not only do you get the people who are trying for a boat but you add in the people who might think they’ve got a chance through official channels.
The UK is a magnet anyway, it's not like the current situation is working for either the UK or France. between the two countries they have to process all of the asylum seekers having a mechanism which deals with it will break the hold the gangs have. The other thing I'd say about it is that anyone who thinks that 'they're in France so it's not our problem' is deluded if they think being in France will stop them trying to get to the UK.
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
No, it is an affront to humanity and an abrogation of our commitments to aid refugees. You might (might?) have a case if successful applicants were returned to the UK from Rwanda after processing. But the fact that even if you are a genuine asylum seeker and found to be so you will not be allowed to return to the UK but forced to stay in a country with a recent history of genocide and civil war - exactly the sorts of situations many of these asylum seekers are fleeing in the first place - means that this is a system which destroys any claims the UK might have to be upholding their international commitments.
Anyone supporting this scheme is really just admitting they don't want Britain playing any part in the asylum system. They are as bad as the MAGA fanatics in the US.
the thing that would 'stop the boats' which the Tories can't propose, and Labour don't seem to be able to propose at the moment, is providing safe and legal means for people to get to the UK.
There's a lot of people currently already in France who want to come to the UK, set up a processing centre in France to deal with them there. it's not going to act as a 'draw' because the system is already doing that. you're not going to stop people trying to get here so deal with them before they try to get here.
The fly in the ointment with the processing centre in France is that you have to build a processing centre in France. If you build a processing centre in France it will be a giant magnet for migrants and so no mayor worth their sash is going to allow it to be in their commune.
Its bad enough for the people of the Calais region but if you open a processing centre then not only do you get the people who are trying for a boat but you add in the people who might think they’ve got a chance through official channels.
Why not process through the British embassy of other countries, where there is one? No need to build anything new
"In 1997, the most common living arrangement for an adult aged between 18 and 34 was being in a couple with children, according to the Resolution Foundation think tank. Now, it is living with your parents."
The boomers really, really, really, really have fucked up their grandchildren. This will only be resolved when they die. But until then Governments will chase boomer votes to the detriment of everybody else
It is intersting you pick out one group (of which I should add I am not a member) for criticism and fucking things up when in fact they were the one group that were the 'odd ones out' historically. Their parents and grandparents would have lived in exactly the sorts of arrangments we are now seeing a return to with multigenerational families living together and most peple renting rather than owning their own homes. Perhaps that is the only really sustainable system in the long term.
That's actually a good point. The period 1945-2040 is approx the boomer period, and as they move thru it like a frog in a snake they distort the system. Because all the analysts and modellers lived in this period they think it's a constant, but (as you say) it's actually a historical anomaly.
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
As previously said, it can both be disgusting and not work at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive.
It’s like opposition to the death penalty: it’s disgusting and it doesn’t work.
You keep saying that those opposed to the Rwanda scheme favour open borders. The current Conservative government has overseen record high immigration, the highest it’s been since at least World War 2. It’s Sunak who appears to be in favour of open borders. We took back control and this is the level of immigration that the Tories have chosen.
It is like telepathy. I was going to post your first two paras. And if course even if proved wrong and the death penalty did prove effective as a deterrent, it still would not be moral. Same goes for Rwanda. In the unlikely event of it working it still wouldn't be right.
Plus:
The huge cost involved and the bizarre fiasco of passing a laws stating that a variable like the safety of somewhere is safe, regardless, is a bit like that US state that almost passed a law defined Pi as being 3.0. Bonkers.
Although I was mildly intrigued that @bondegezou thinks opposition to the death penalty is disgusting and doesn’t work.
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
No, it is an affront to humanity and an abrogation of our commitments to aid refugees. You might (might?) have a case if successful applicants were returned to the UK from Rwanda after processing. But the fact that even if you are a genuine asylum seeker and found to be so you will not be allowed to return to the UK but forced to stay in a country with a recent history of genocide and civil war - exactly the sorts of situations many of these asylum seekers are fleeing in the first place - means that this is a system which destroys any claims the UK might have to be upholding their international commitments.
Anyone supporting this scheme is really just admitting they don't want Britain playing any part in the asylum system. They are as bad as the MAGA fanatics in the US.
the thing that would 'stop the boats' which the Tories can't propose, and Labour don't seem to be able to propose at the moment, is providing safe and legal means for people to get to the UK.
There's a lot of people currently already in France who want to come to the UK, set up a processing centre in France to deal with them there. it's not going to act as a 'draw' because the system is already doing that. you're not going to stop people trying to get here so deal with them before they try to get here.
The fly in the ointment with the processing centre in France is that you have to build a processing centre in France. If you build a processing centre in France it will be a giant magnet for migrants and so no mayor worth their sash is going to allow it to be in their commune.
Its bad enough for the people of the Calais region but if you open a processing centre then not only do you get the people who are trying for a boat but you add in the people who might think they’ve got a chance through official channels.
The UK is a magnet anyway, it's not like the current situation is working for either the UK or France. between the two countries they have to process all of the asylum seekers having a mechanism which deals with it will break the hold the gangs have. The other thing I'd say about it is that anyone who thinks that 'they're in France so it's not our problem' is deluded if they think being in France will stop them trying to get to the UK.
Absolutely, it doesn’t change the fact that “we just need to build a processing centre in France” is easier said than done. It’s unlikely that nobody has thought of it more that everyone who has discussed it has realised that they will never get permission to site it.
If you think how hard it is to build homes where they are needed then think how much harder it is to get a French mayor to agree to a dirty great big processing centre to be sited in their commune.
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
"the libs hate it" is just about all there is left though.
I'm struck how Casino is happy to explain how his political opponents think, when he'd get pretty offended were we to return the favour.
FWIW, I'm happy to concede I have no idea what goes on in his noggin.
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
No, it is an affront to humanity and an abrogation of our commitments to aid refugees. You might (might?) have a case if successful applicants were returned to the UK from Rwanda after processing. But the fact that even if you are a genuine asylum seeker and found to be so you will not be allowed to return to the UK but forced to stay in a country with a recent history of genocide and civil war - exactly the sorts of situations many of these asylum seekers are fleeing in the first place - means that this is a system which destroys any claims the UK might have to be upholding their international commitments.
Anyone supporting this scheme is really just admitting they don't want Britain playing any part in the asylum system. They are as bad as the MAGA fanatics in the US.
the thing that would 'stop the boats' which the Tories can't propose, and Labour don't seem to be able to propose at the moment, is providing safe and legal means for people to get to the UK.
There's a lot of people currently already in France who want to come to the UK, set up a processing centre in France to deal with them there. it's not going to act as a 'draw' because the system is already doing that. you're not going to stop people trying to get here so deal with them before they try to get here.
The fly in the ointment with the processing centre in France is that you have to build a processing centre in France. If you build a processing centre in France it will be a giant magnet for migrants and so no mayor worth their sash is going to allow it to be in their commune.
Its bad enough for the people of the Calais region but if you open a processing centre then not only do you get the people who are trying for a boat but you add in the people who might think they’ve got a chance through official channels.
Why not process through the British embassy of other countries, where there is one? No need to build anything new
Again, think how pissed off people who live anywhere near those embassies will be when you have potentially thousands of people camped out queuing outside those embassies. Those embassies are usually in areas where wealthy and influential people live which will make it even harder however wrong that might be.
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
Nobody is terrified that it could work. Nobody looking at it - including the Home Office machine who will run it - think it will work. With evidence.
So on one side we have Tory hopium. And on the other side, reality.
Until the Tories accept that reality is reality, they will lose.
Come on, admit it RP, every morning you break out into cold sweats with fear that the brilliant Rwanda scheme is going to stop refugees reaching our shores, and if that happened how would you possibly cope.
It is ok and perfectly understandable to be terrified of such an event, no need for the fake bravado.
The quickfire defensive posts on the subject by several on here are very revealing.
They are indeed
Also the Irish government is explicitly saying that Rwanda is working
Are they lying? Why? What’s in it for them to lie?
Genuine question. I don’t see the benefit unless the Irish are also planning a Rwanda style solution and this is seed sowing
I also don’t understand how Ireland can “legislate to send people back to the UK”. If they can do that (I doubt it) surely we can do the same vis a vis France?
That or “never invite the Scottish Greens into government.”
Lorna Slater emphatic on Sunday Show that Humza Yousaf is dead to her and only a new FM can get her approval. Lesson for other parties and future governments: don't f*** with the Scottish Greens
Yes, but is too much being blamed on the Scottish Green's? The SNP's madcap left contingent, also pushing these dystopian laws, are also to blame.
I think a large chunk of the “progressive” agenda (sic) can be laid at Sturgeon’s door and the Greens provided good cover against the small c conservatives in the SNP - much as Cameron used the LibDems
“Actually the source of the crisis, as I understand it, is Martin Geissler.”
Alex Salmond thinks @mmgeissler’s interview with Patrick Harvie, in which Harvie refused to accept the scientific validity of the Cass Report, was the catalyst for the past week’s events. #BBCSundayShow
I'd recommend a listen to the More of Less podcast's recent episode on Cass:
'98%: Is misinformation being spread about a review of trans youth medicine?'.
That this is a BBC podcast which is so excoriating of trans activists shows how Cass has changed the narrative.
Speaking of which I said I'd go thru it. I don't know when I'll have time but thanks for the reminder.
I haven't quite finished it, but Cass is not how it is being spun by either Transphobes or Trans activists.
It is about providing timely, scientifically based youth Transgender services, and for determining evidence based treatments for areas such as puberty blockers where this is currently inadequate. It isn't about access to toilet/changing areas/hospitals/refuges as social policy falls outside its remit, nor is it about services and treatments for adults.
The current effect is not what it says in its introduction (to provide high quality evidence based services) but rather to close down all youth Gender services entirely. The Tavistock has closed, the replacement services have not started and are struggling to find staff. Patients on the waiting list simply aren't going to be seen for years.
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
Nobody is terrified that it could work. Nobody looking at it - including the Home Office machine who will run it - think it will work. With evidence.
So on one side we have Tory hopium. And on the other side, reality.
Until the Tories accept that reality is reality, they will lose.
Come on, admit it RP, every morning you break out into cold sweats with fear that the brilliant Rwanda scheme is going to stop refugees reaching our shores, and if that happened how would you possibly cope.
It is ok and perfectly understandable to be terrified of such an event, no need for the fake bravado.
The quickfire defensive posts on the subject by several on here are very revealing.
They are indeed
Also the Irish government is explicitly saying that Rwanda is working
Are they lying? Why? What’s in it for them to lie?
Genuine question. I don’t see the benefit unless the Irish are also planning a Rwanda style solution and this is seed sowing
I also don’t understand how Ireland can “legislate to send people back to the UK”. If they can do that (I doubt it) surely we can do the same vis a vis France?
As far as can I see that article says more migrants have been crossing the land border from NI to Ireland.
As someone who thinks the present policy on immigration is nasty and brutal I’m finding myself conflicted by a report I read recently to the effect that many of the current boat passengers are Vietnamese. Now I’m aware that Vietnam isn’t paradise on earth, but I doubt very much that people trying to come here from there are in the same category, refugee-wise, as, for example, Afghans who worked for our Army and their families. I wasn’t, for example very worried when large numbers of Albanians who arrived her ‘illegally’ were sent back. I still don’t think, though, our treatment of boat people as a whole can be described as ‘civilised’ !
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
Tosh.
It's disgusting because of what it proposed doing to people. And it has involved the UK government knowingly passing a law that says that up is down, even if new evidence comes to light.
It's likely to be ineffective because the government is going to do it to so few people that deterrence is unlikely to kick in. Deterrence is roughly severity multiplied by probability, and the probability in the UK's Rwanda plan is too low to be useful.
I've said before, you have to go big on this sort of thing, or it will collapse as a joke.
Cruel but effective is a worthwhile moral debate. Cruel but ineffective is just evil.
Personal post. Exactly a year ago today my firm, a venerable institution that had been doing badly over a few years, sold its assets to another firm that gazumped a private investor that it had been preparing to sell to over a number of weeks. I had been working on employment aspects of this transaction for some time and was taken aback by the suddenness of the decision to a firm that had come in at the very last minute. Nevertheless, I was relieved, all jobs saved, clients' interests protected, job done, on with the next thing. Four months later it emerges that the sole owner of owner of the firm that had bought us had done so using the funds from his own firm's client account. As a result I resigned and managed to find new jobs for nearly all my team at another firm in the City. I got off lightly.
The owner of the firm that bought us, Pragnesh Modhwadia, admits using his client's funds to buy my firm and another law firm, has been suspended by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and is under investigation by the SFO. He was the 100% owner of his firm, he acted as its Compliance Officer for Legal Practice, Head of Finance and Administration, and Money Laundering Reporting Officer.
The firm he founded as a one man conveyancing practice some years earlier, Axiom Stone) had no experience whatsoever of the type of law my firm practiced in the City. The SRA not only allowed the takeover it actively encouraged it by threatening my firm with intervention if it did not get the client files out of our financially distressed environment ASAP. As a result of that hundreds of clients who had money in the firm have lost that money, dozens of people remain out of work, and the SRA is proposing adding £500 to the cost of a practicing certificate of every single solicitor in England and Wales. This need not have happened with respect to my old firm. Other parties were interested.
Why was one man allowed to have so much control over so much client money in such a large firm? The ownership structure of the Axiom entity had not changed since Modhwadia founded it above a greengrocers in Edgware. How was that structure supposed to manage a multinational top 100 firm with expertise in shipping and insurance law? While historically one person has been able to properly run small law firms, this was not a small law firm.
I guess my point here is that nothing seems to operate properly anymore. Its more than law, its culture. The rot at the SRA is not unique to that organisation, it seems to exist in every organisation that's designed to oversee our behaviour, from the Met onwards.
I have noticed similar. I may have mentioned this on here once or twice.
This story is utterly shocking. Of a piece, sadly and shamefully, with how the British state treats victims of its misconduct.
"A British Army veteran of 13 years and victim of the Windrush Scandal has died in Jamaica after being left destitute and humiliated by the UK government.
When Anthony Williams despaired with the UK in 2022, he told the Guardian that the Tory government was “just stringing us along until people lose interest, and we die out.”"
All Governments are malign, it's just this Government is weapons grade corrupt, both in thought and actions.
I am surprised I am the only one on here interested in the Private Eye revelation about the Rayner soap opera. I thought you might have raised an eyebrow.
It surrounds Chief Constable Watson reopening the Rayner case on a word from James Daly who has made no secret that he believes Watson should replace Rowley at the Met. Doubtless all coincidental, so nothing to see there. However Watson does appear to have connections to the Conservative Party and has made Conference fringe speeches.
I have been very busy on other matters. I am about 8 threads behind. What is the issue?
The Sunday Rawnsley, via already warm and sunny Umbria:
The collapse of the Soviet Union was followed by a dramatic decline in military spending. The UK, which was consuming 4-5% of its GDP on defence in the final stretch of the confrontation with the USSR, now devotes a smidgeon over 2%. So Rishi Sunak is right – not a phrase I or anyone else writes very often – when he says that the UK needs to become more serious about protecting its security and vital national interests.
Both the Tory and Labour leaders say that defence spending needs to rise to 2.5% of GDP. Neither offer any guarantees about when this will happen and both are avoiding having a frank conversation with voters about the price of security. Those wanting to see the UK putting more into defence face several challenges. The first is the lack of public enthusiasm for the idea. The public will also need persuading that bucks for bangs will be used wisely. This will be hard because the Ministry of Defence has such an atrocious record of repeated and costly procurement failures.
It is an exaggeration to say that we will have to choose between being a welfare state and a warfare state. The UK was both during the Cold War. It is true to say that if defence spending is going to rise, something else will have to give. Absent a miraculous surge in growth, the fundamental choice will be either higher taxes (at a time when many voters think they are being taxed quite enough already, thank you) or less in the kitty for public services and social support (at a time when most voters think we need to be spending more on them).
Mr Sunak probably isn’t losing much sleep over that dilemma, because it is highly unlikely to be his problem for much longer. Sir Keir does have to worry about it, because this will almost certainly be landing in his lap like an unpinned hand grenade. To govern is to choose. To spend more on defence will mean choosing to spend less on things voters currently say they care about more...
...or to increase taxes, which is obviously what will happen.
On other people.
In reality increasing taxes on property is the only viable source.
Property of itself does not generate an income so taxes on domestic property either have to come out of people's income or savings or when property is transferred eg on sale or death. Property which is let is already taxed as income.
So how exactly is domestic property to be taxed? This is a genuine question BTW.
Property does not generate income - leaving aside the £7500 a year tax free you can get under the rent-a-room allowance and anything similar, and anything else you rent out, such as further rooms, your Motorhome as an AirBNB etc - but it *does* generate tax free unearned wealth.
This is especially the case in the UK where housing wealth is a tax-loophole market-distorting fetish. I'd point to the need to make use of housing more efficient (what was it - 28,000,000 second spare bedrooms in the OO sector?), especially around people rattling around in large houses for tax reasons - such as holding on for many years for IHT exemptions to avoid paying some Stamp Duty. And also to the need to create a less distorted market.
Downsizing earlier is far more rational, and needs to be incentivised alongside living in right-sized homes.
So I'd go for two, maybe three, things:
1 - For the unearned wealth, wealth taxes on transfer. That could be an element of CGT, and a more rational iHT allowances / setup.
2 - I'd switch to an approx. 0.5% property-value tax to replace Council Tax. I've argued before for the Proportional Property Tax, which includes abolition of Stamp Duty in the package - which would remove a further distortion from the market.
3 - I'm also attracted to the Swiss idea of a low starting (say 0.1% of per-cent at the low end), but widely-based wealth tax, on property. Perhaps in the UK applying to a large majority of properties.
But TBF there is a bit of an overlap between 2 and 3.
I can see all sorts of problems with property/wealth tax in the way you describe.
Firstly if you are expecting it to replace council tax then you are going to throw up all sorts of anomalies and also find that in much of the country it is raising less tax than existing council tax.
In my 50s I am fortunate enough to be living in a house (still with a mortgage) currently valued at around 600K. It is in a part of the country where 600K buys you a lot of house and a good slice of land. I pay around £4000 a year in Council tax so your suggestion would actually reduce what I paid by £1000 a year. And yet someone living in a much smaller house in London or the SE valued at the same amount could see their new tax being twice or more what they currently pay in Council tax.
Moreover what is wealth? Most countries like Norway which have a wealth tax only include the value of the property minus any outstanding mortgage. After all that bit is not actually yours. If you try that here as a replacement for Council tax you are going to find yourself with a massive shortfall in many parts of the country.
And taxing people when they sell under CGT is only going to make people hang on longer. No one likes paying huge sums of money to the Government so on its own a CGT scheme would make people less likely to downsize rather than more.
Interesting points - I think you identify distortions in the current system which need to be fixed. If there are big changes in fixing them then I take the other side - it highlights how important it is that it be done.
On Council Tax, Current Council Tax is based on values from iirc 1991, and is angled towards lower value properties paying more per value due to the 1:3 Low to High Band ratio (iirc).
You pay ~4k on a ~£600k property. I pay ~2.5k on a Band D ~£450k property also in Notts. Someone by Coxmoor Golf Club pays approximately ~3.5k on a Band F ~£800k property (based on the recently sold 'Hacienda').
Someone known to me in Surrey (London outskirts, 4 bed extended semi, Band E, value £850k) pays £2821. That value is up approximately 12x, maybe 15x since Council Tax bands were set.
It's a godawful mess, and imo an observation of the scale of change that *might* be introduced doesn't remove the need to address the weeping sore. IMO London property has been overvalued and undertaxed relatively for a very long time (just compare Band D numbers across the country), and part of addressing the market distortion is to address the tax system.
It would make sense to bring in change over a period of years, and a higher (or lower) annual tax on a property may help address our distorted housing market, in the same way as ending Government demand side new buyer subsidies also help.
If we can slay the "but property prices will always increase" myth, then so much the better.
I'd also note that the Proportional Property Tax proposals also include an element of redistribution as we have now, and abolition of Stamp Duty - which would remove a further distorting factor and come in on the other side of the equation to an increase in CGT.
I'm say that CGT on property transfer can be balanced between CGT and IHT to provide the appropriate incentives towards efficient use.
It's a mess, and the way to start fixing it is to begin now, even if only in small ways. I'd say Mr Starmer has quite the unique opportunity, after a generation of do-nothing.
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
Nobody is terrified that it could work. Nobody looking at it - including the Home Office machine who will run it - think it will work. With evidence.
So on one side we have Tory hopium. And on the other side, reality.
Until the Tories accept that reality is reality, they will lose.
Come on, admit it RP, every morning you break out into cold sweats with fear that the brilliant Rwanda scheme is going to stop refugees reaching our shores, and if that happened how would you possibly cope.
It is ok and perfectly understandable to be terrified of such an event, no need for the fake bravado.
The quickfire defensive posts on the subject by several on here are very revealing.
They are indeed
Also the Irish government is explicitly saying that Rwanda is working
Are they lying? Why? What’s in it for them to lie?
Genuine question. I don’t see the benefit unless the Irish are also planning a Rwanda style solution and this is seed sowing
I also don’t understand how Ireland can “legislate to send people back to the UK”. If they can do that (I doubt it) surely we can do the same vis a vis France?
You can't. Forcible introduction of people into foreign nations is invasion, and surreptitious introduction is at least illegal.
“Actually the source of the crisis, as I understand it, is Martin Geissler.”
Alex Salmond thinks @mmgeissler’s interview with Patrick Harvie, in which Harvie refused to accept the scientific validity of the Cass Report, was the catalyst for the past week’s events. #BBCSundayShow
I'd recommend a listen to the More of Less podcast's recent episode on Cass:
'98%: Is misinformation being spread about a review of trans youth medicine?'.
That this is a BBC podcast which is so excoriating of trans activists shows how Cass has changed the narrative.
Speaking of which I said I'd go thru it. I don't know when I'll have time but thanks for the reminder.
I haven't quite finished it, but Cass is not how it is being spun by either Transphobes or Trans activists.
It is about providing timely, scientifically based youth Transgender services, and for determining evidence based treatments for areas such as puberty blockers where this is currently inadequate. It isn't about access to toilet/changing areas/hospitals/refuges as social policy falls outside its remit, nor is it about services and treatments for adults.
The current effect is not what it says in its introduction (to provide high quality evidence based services) but rather to close down all youth Gender services entirely. The Tavistock has closed, the replacement services have not started and are struggling to find staff. Patients on the waiting list simply aren't going to be seen for years.
Well yes, but that's not what I meant. Analyses of, and attacks on, the Cass Review/report tend to get bogged down in detail and adhominems. I was thinking of going thru each para and applying some simple yes/no sieves (is this para sourced? What is the age group? Which of the York reviews is it referring to?). Such simple tests can be displayed in a 2x2 table, or several ones.
As someone who thinks the present policy on immigration is nasty and brutal I’m finding myself conflicted by a report I read recently to the effect that many of the current boat passengers are Vietnamese. Now I’m aware that Vietnam isn’t paradise on earth, but I doubt very much that people trying to come here from there are in the same category, refugee-wise, as, for example, Afghans who worked for our Army and their families. I wasn’t, for example very worried when large numbers of Albanians who arrived her ‘illegally’ were sent back. I still don’t think, though, our treatment of boat people as a whole can be described as ‘civilised’ !
The Tories are failing to do the basic things well, and instead invoke fantasy solutions like Rwanda. These are not insoluble problems: they just require a bit of competence and a bit of spending.
Alex Salmond’s argument that Ash Regan is the most powerful MSP in the country might have more weight if he moved aside and let her do just a single one of the broadcast interviews. Very odd look.
Quite. It's almost as if he's a man who feels he has a score to settle and it's less about the FM, the government or the country, and it's more about him....
Anyway, since this is a betting site I just want to report that my day at Sandown Races yesterday, as well as being very enjoyable, was one of my most profitable ever, getting a winner or a placed horse in all the races at good odds.
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
Nobody is terrified that it could work. Nobody looking at it - including the Home Office machine who will run it - think it will work. With evidence.
So on one side we have Tory hopium. And on the other side, reality.
Until the Tories accept that reality is reality, they will lose.
Come on, admit it RP, every morning you break out into cold sweats with fear that the brilliant Rwanda scheme is going to stop refugees reaching our shores, and if that happened how would you possibly cope.
It is ok and perfectly understandable to be terrified of such an event, no need for the fake bravado.
The quickfire defensive posts on the subject by several on here are very revealing.
They are indeed
Also the Irish government is explicitly saying that Rwanda is working
Are they lying? Why? What’s in it for them to lie?
Genuine question. I don’t see the benefit unless the Irish are also planning a Rwanda style solution and this is seed sowing
I also don’t understand how Ireland can “legislate to send people back to the UK”. If they can do that (I doubt it) surely we can do the same vis a vis France?
As far as can I see that article says more migrants have been crossing the land border from NI to Ireland.
Do we class that as "working"?
How is that "stopping the boats"?
They say people are desperate to flee the UK as they are in fear of being sent to Rwanda. That’s Rwanda working. The object is to have as few of these people in the UK as possible. If that means the ones here flee to Ireland - great. We don’t have to pay for them
And I imagine in the end - IF Rwanda is done properly - they will stop coming to Britain in the first place. Why make a dangerous effort to get to a country you are then desperate to escape from. Makes no sense
Of course, the government in Dublin might be lying. It’s not unknown
The only way that the DfE can begin to fund pay rises for teachers is to cut everything else. (Including a project I was involved in. Bitter moi?)
(Worth noting that Lucy Kellaway, who created Now Teacher, is both a good egg and a former FT hack. If she wants to kick up a media fuss, she has allies.)
I’m not sure most of the public actually understand that the Rwanda scheme isn’t offshore processing, it’s a one way ticket. For that reason it is completely beyond the pale.
If it did work as a deterrent (which evidence suggests it won’t) and was more affordable, it would of course present Labour with a moral dilemma. One which I suspect would see political considerations trumping morals.
I don't think it will actually be a one way ticket because, if the Australia scheme is a guide, the UK can't actually wash its hands of the refugees it sends to Rwanda. Sunak is creating a problem for the future Labour government. It will have to do something with the refugees marooned in Rwanda. Meanwhile the Kagame taxi meter will be racking up bills at ever increasing rates.
The Sunday Rawnsley, via already warm and sunny Umbria:
The collapse of the Soviet Union was followed by a dramatic decline in military spending. The UK, which was consuming 4-5% of its GDP on defence in the final stretch of the confrontation with the USSR, now devotes a smidgeon over 2%. So Rishi Sunak is right – not a phrase I or anyone else writes very often – when he says that the UK needs to become more serious about protecting its security and vital national interests.
Both the Tory and Labour leaders say that defence spending needs to rise to 2.5% of GDP. Neither offer any guarantees about when this will happen and both are avoiding having a frank conversation with voters about the price of security. Those wanting to see the UK putting more into defence face several challenges. The first is the lack of public enthusiasm for the idea. The public will also need persuading that bucks for bangs will be used wisely. This will be hard because the Ministry of Defence has such an atrocious record of repeated and costly procurement failures.
It is an exaggeration to say that we will have to choose between being a welfare state and a warfare state. The UK was both during the Cold War. It is true to say that if defence spending is going to rise, something else will have to give. Absent a miraculous surge in growth, the fundamental choice will be either higher taxes (at a time when many voters think they are being taxed quite enough already, thank you) or less in the kitty for public services and social support (at a time when most voters think we need to be spending more on them).
Mr Sunak probably isn’t losing much sleep over that dilemma, because it is highly unlikely to be his problem for much longer. Sir Keir does have to worry about it, because this will almost certainly be landing in his lap like an unpinned hand grenade. To govern is to choose. To spend more on defence will mean choosing to spend less on things voters currently say they care about more...
...or to increase taxes, which is obviously what will happen.
On other people.
In reality increasing taxes on property is the only viable source.
Property of itself does not generate an income so taxes on domestic property either have to come out of people's income or savings or when property is transferred eg on sale or death. Property which is let is already taxed as income.
So how exactly is domestic property to be taxed? This is a genuine question BTW.
Remove the CGT exemption on "own home" sales.
Isn't that what the USA does, even for citizens living abroad? When Mr and Mrs Boris Johnson sold their Islington house to move to a larger one he was stung for CGT by the IRS thanks to his being born in NYC.
Only if the gain on his share of the property was over $250k.
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
No, it is an affront to humanity and an abrogation of our commitments to aid refugees. You might (might?) have a case if successful applicants were returned to the UK from Rwanda after processing. But the fact that even if you are a genuine asylum seeker and found to be so you will not be allowed to return to the UK but forced to stay in a country with a recent history of genocide and civil war - exactly the sorts of situations many of these asylum seekers are fleeing in the first place - means that this is a system which destroys any claims the UK might have to be upholding their international commitments.
Anyone supporting this scheme is really just admitting they don't want Britain playing any part in the asylum system. They are as bad as the MAGA fanatics in the US.
the thing that would 'stop the boats' which the Tories can't propose, and Labour don't seem to be able to propose at the moment, is providing safe and legal means for people to get to the UK.
There's a lot of people currently already in France who want to come to the UK, set up a processing centre in France to deal with them there. it's not going to act as a 'draw' because the system is already doing that. you're not going to stop people trying to get here so deal with them before they try to get here.
The fly in the ointment with the processing centre in France is that you have to build a processing centre in France. If you build a processing centre in France it will be a giant magnet for migrants and so no mayor worth their sash is going to allow it to be in their commune.
Its bad enough for the people of the Calais region but if you open a processing centre then not only do you get the people who are trying for a boat but you add in the people who might think they’ve got a chance through official channels.
Why not process through the British embassy of other countries, where there is one? No need to build anything new
Again, think how pissed off people who live anywhere near those embassies will be when you have potentially thousands of people camped out queuing outside those embassies. Those embassies are usually in areas where wealthy and influential people live which will make it even harder however wrong that might be.
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
No, it is an affront to humanity and an abrogation of our commitments to aid refugees. You might (might?) have a case if successful applicants were returned to the UK from Rwanda after processing. But the fact that even if you are a genuine asylum seeker and found to be so you will not be allowed to return to the UK but forced to stay in a country with a recent history of genocide and civil war - exactly the sorts of situations many of these asylum seekers are fleeing in the first place - means that this is a system which destroys any claims the UK might have to be upholding their international commitments.
Anyone supporting this scheme is really just admitting they don't want Britain playing any part in the asylum system. They are as bad as the MAGA fanatics in the US.
the thing that would 'stop the boats' which the Tories can't propose, and Labour don't seem to be able to propose at the moment, is providing safe and legal means for people to get to the UK.
There's a lot of people currently already in France who want to come to the UK, set up a processing centre in France to deal with them there. it's not going to act as a 'draw' because the system is already doing that. you're not going to stop people trying to get here so deal with them before they try to get here.
Yeah, that’s a brilliant idea
What do you think the people refused in France will do? That’s right, they’ll get on a boat
The IQ level on this debate is somewhere beneath the earth’s mantle
Clearly huge resistance in the SNP to any deal with Alba to save Humza Yousaf. That leaves the Scottish Greens. They continue to insist they will vote against him. If the FM can't persuade his party (and Alba!) to swallow a deal or the Greens to change their mind, he's finished.
The only way that the DfE can begin to fund pay rises for teachers is to cut everything else. (Including a project I was involved in. Bitter moi?)
(Worth noting that Lucy Kellaway, who created Now Teacher, is both a good egg and a former FT hack. If she wants to kick up a media fuss, she has allies.)
Even if it only brings in a few hundred people, it is a few hundred people we need badly given that all ITT routes are failing to meet targets. The PGCEs are only half full, it is incredibly difficult to recruit for Key Stage 4 and 5 staff at present.
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
Nobody is terrified that it could work. Nobody looking at it - including the Home Office machine who will run it - think it will work. With evidence.
So on one side we have Tory hopium. And on the other side, reality.
Until the Tories accept that reality is reality, they will lose.
Come on, admit it RP, every morning you break out into cold sweats with fear that the brilliant Rwanda scheme is going to stop refugees reaching our shores, and if that happened how would you possibly cope.
It is ok and perfectly understandable to be terrified of such an event, no need for the fake bravado.
The quickfire defensive posts on the subject by several on here are very revealing.
They are indeed
Also the Irish government is explicitly saying that Rwanda is working
Are they lying? Why? What’s in it for them to lie?
Genuine question. I don’t see the benefit unless the Irish are also planning a Rwanda style solution and this is seed sowing
I also don’t understand how Ireland can “legislate to send people back to the UK”. If they can do that (I doubt it) surely we can do the same vis a vis France?
Are you really that naive? Can you not see how blaming the British is a great get out of jail free card for the Irish government, who are dealing with their own problems with migration and asylum seekers (asylum seekers in tents on the streets of Dublin, riots and arson at sites being prepared to house asylum seekers, massive housing crisis)?
It's possible that the Irish government is also telling the truth. It must happen by coincidence occasionally.
I noted a little concern among some the other day that I don't have travel insurance..
I told my Mum about Tennessee Travis and his venomous snake bite. This obviously triggered something as I got an email confirming my insurance a couple of hours later, arranged by my Dad
Oh, and I noticed that I passed half a million steps this morning (day nine)
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
No, it is an affront to humanity and an abrogation of our commitments to aid refugees. You might (might?) have a case if successful applicants were returned to the UK from Rwanda after processing. But the fact that even if you are a genuine asylum seeker and found to be so you will not be allowed to return to the UK but forced to stay in a country with a recent history of genocide and civil war - exactly the sorts of situations many of these asylum seekers are fleeing in the first place - means that this is a system which destroys any claims the UK might have to be upholding their international commitments.
Anyone supporting this scheme is really just admitting they don't want Britain playing any part in the asylum system. They are as bad as the MAGA fanatics in the US.
the thing that would 'stop the boats' which the Tories can't propose, and Labour don't seem to be able to propose at the moment, is providing safe and legal means for people to get to the UK.
There's a lot of people currently already in France who want to come to the UK, set up a processing centre in France to deal with them there. it's not going to act as a 'draw' because the system is already doing that. you're not going to stop people trying to get here so deal with them before they try to get here.
Yeah, that’s a brilliant idea
What do you think the people refused in France will do? That’s right, they’ll get on a boat
The IQ level on this debate is somewhere beneath the earth’s mantle
People refused in France can and would be deported by France. if they somehow make it to the UK they've already been refused so then get deported without having to process them.
O/T: the local elections are next week. If you have postal votes please make sure that they are posted in good time to get there before the closing date, which I think is 23:59 Wednesday
Ironically it may be the Scottish Tories who save Yousaf. While Scottish Labour have put down a confidence motion demanding the resignation of the entire Scottish government, including Yousaf, the Tories have put down a motion which does not require Yousaf to resign.
Indeed keeping a wounded Yousaf in place is far better for the SCons than getting him forced out and replaced by Forbes or Regan who would have more appeal in their rural and market town seats. Given current polls for Holyrood too the Tories are forecast to lose seats like the SNP and Labour to gain MSPs at their expense, so it is in Labour's interest for a snap Holyrood poll but not in the interest of the Conservatives any more than the SNP
“Actually the source of the crisis, as I understand it, is Martin Geissler.”
Alex Salmond thinks @mmgeissler’s interview with Patrick Harvie, in which Harvie refused to accept the scientific validity of the Cass Report, was the catalyst for the past week’s events. #BBCSundayShow
As someone who thinks the present policy on immigration is nasty and brutal I’m finding myself conflicted by a report I read recently to the effect that many of the current boat passengers are Vietnamese. Now I’m aware that Vietnam isn’t paradise on earth, but I doubt very much that people trying to come here from there are in the same category, refugee-wise, as, for example, Afghans who worked for our Army and their families. I wasn’t, for example very worried when large numbers of Albanians who arrived her ‘illegally’ were sent back. I still don’t think, though, our treatment of boat people as a whole can be described as ‘civilised’ !
A thoughtful post @OldKingCole . I find myself similarly conflicted. In Utopia freedom of movement is a wonderful idea, but in the real world where countries have hugely different levels of standard of living and freedoms it isn't practical.and therefore we need controls but as far as I remember we have always had the power and to a certain extent effectively returned people to places such as Albania and Vietnam. The current Government seems to have completely broken the system.
Why not process through the British embassy of other countries, where there is one? No need to build anything new
Again, think how pissed off people who live anywhere near those embassies will be when you have potentially thousands of people camped out queuing outside those embassies. Those embassies are usually in areas where wealthy and influential people live which will make it even harder however wrong that might be.
Every policy has some drawbacks. I decline to worry about queues causing mild inconvenience to some rich people in Mogadishu.
The more substantial issue is simply processing time and capacity. One approach that seems to work quite well is the US Green Card approach. As I understand it, this lists the categories of people who will even be considered (https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-eligibility-categories) and it's transparent about the waiting times and costs. If you're not in a priority category, you can enter their lottery. This seems to offer an alternative to the extremes of "Suffer your horrible situation all your life" and "Try to bribe a people-smuggler to get you a place on a leaky boat". It won't eliminate the boat people option but it should reduce the pressure, simply by giving a legal option which may take a long time but has a non-zero chance of actually working.
“Actually the source of the crisis, as I understand it, is Martin Geissler.”
Alex Salmond thinks @mmgeissler’s interview with Patrick Harvie, in which Harvie refused to accept the scientific validity of the Cass Report, was the catalyst for the past week’s events. #BBCSundayShow
“Actually the source of the crisis, as I understand it, is Martin Geissler.”
Alex Salmond thinks @mmgeissler’s interview with Patrick Harvie, in which Harvie refused to accept the scientific validity of the Cass Report, was the catalyst for the past week’s events. #BBCSundayShow
I'd recommend a listen to the More of Less podcast's recent episode on Cass:
'98%: Is misinformation being spread about a review of trans youth medicine?'.
That this is a BBC podcast which is so excoriating of trans activists shows how Cass has changed the narrative.
Speaking of which I said I'd go thru it. I don't know when I'll have time but thanks for the reminder.
I haven't quite finished it, but Cass is not how it is being spun by either Transphobes or Trans activists.
It is about providing timely, scientifically based youth Transgender services, and for determining evidence based treatments for areas such as puberty blockers where this is currently inadequate. It isn't about access to toilet/changing areas/hospitals/refuges as social policy falls outside its remit, nor is it about services and treatments for adults.
The current effect is not what it says in its introduction (to provide high quality evidence based services) but rather to close down all youth Gender services entirely. The Tavistock has closed, the replacement services have not started and are struggling to find staff. Patients on the waiting list simply aren't going to be seen for years.
Well yes, but that's not what I meant. Analyses of, and attacks on, the Cass Review/report tend to get bogged down in detail and adhominems. I was thinking of going thru each para and applying some simple yes/no sieves (is this para sourced? What is the age group? Which of the York reviews is it referring to?). Such simple tests can be displayed in a 2x2 table, or several ones.
If i have time (urgh...) I could then do a time series, depicting sources by date.
To put it simply, Cass Final is being dealt with as a political document. Treating it like a statistical document may yield light instead of heat...
It is possible to quibble over some of the literature reviews. There is a hierarchy of evidence for these, and while there are a paucity of strong evidence on any of the topics, though a lot of weaker evidence from case series and expert opinion from recognised authorities. This isn't unusual in Child Health, where many medicines are unlicensed but widely used.
It will never be treated as a completely scientific issue because the whole issue of gender as distinct from sex, and of gender inconguence is a philosophical and social issue too.
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
No, it is an affront to humanity and an abrogation of our commitments to aid refugees. You might (might?) have a case if successful applicants were returned to the UK from Rwanda after processing. But the fact that even if you are a genuine asylum seeker and found to be so you will not be allowed to return to the UK but forced to stay in a country with a recent history of genocide and civil war - exactly the sorts of situations many of these asylum seekers are fleeing in the first place - means that this is a system which destroys any claims the UK might have to be upholding their international commitments.
Anyone supporting this scheme is really just admitting they don't want Britain playing any part in the asylum system. They are as bad as the MAGA fanatics in the US.
the thing that would 'stop the boats' which the Tories can't propose, and Labour don't seem to be able to propose at the moment, is providing safe and legal means for people to get to the UK.
There's a lot of people currently already in France who want to come to the UK, set up a processing centre in France to deal with them there. it's not going to act as a 'draw' because the system is already doing that. you're not going to stop people trying to get here so deal with them before they try to get here.
The fly in the ointment with the processing centre in France is that you have to build a processing centre in France. If you build a processing centre in France it will be a giant magnet for migrants and so no mayor worth their sash is going to allow it to be in their commune.
Its bad enough for the people of the Calais region but if you open a processing centre then not only do you get the people who are trying for a boat but you add in the people who might think they’ve got a chance through official channels.
Why not process through the British embassy of other countries, where there is one? No need to build anything new
Again, think how pissed off people who live anywhere near those embassies will be when you have potentially thousands of people camped out queuing outside those embassies. Those embassies are usually in areas where wealthy and influential people live which will make it even harder however wrong that might be.
But would they actually be able to stop it?
I mean , it would be daft not to try it and would be relatively cheap. All it needs is a central processing centre in the UK linked to each embassy remotely. All each embassy needs is a room with laptop, camera and a member of staff.
It would also allow people to seek asylum at the first British embassy they get to, rather than everyone going to France. Ultimately asylum seekers may tend to avoid embassies that typically have long queues, or hostile environs, and head to less busy ones, the capacity situation sorting itself out
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
No, it is an affront to humanity and an abrogation of our commitments to aid refugees. You might (might?) have a case if successful applicants were returned to the UK from Rwanda after processing. But the fact that even if you are a genuine asylum seeker and found to be so you will not be allowed to return to the UK but forced to stay in a country with a recent history of genocide and civil war - exactly the sorts of situations many of these asylum seekers are fleeing in the first place - means that this is a system which destroys any claims the UK might have to be upholding their international commitments.
Anyone supporting this scheme is really just admitting they don't want Britain playing any part in the asylum system. They are as bad as the MAGA fanatics in the US.
the thing that would 'stop the boats' which the Tories can't propose, and Labour don't seem to be able to propose at the moment, is providing safe and legal means for people to get to the UK.
There's a lot of people currently already in France who want to come to the UK, set up a processing centre in France to deal with them there. it's not going to act as a 'draw' because the system is already doing that. you're not going to stop people trying to get here so deal with them before they try to get here.
Yeah, that’s a brilliant idea
What do you think the people refused in France will do? That’s right, they’ll get on a boat
The IQ level on this debate is somewhere beneath the earth’s mantle
People refused in France can and would be deported by France. if they somehow make it to the UK they've already been refused so then get deported without having to process them.
Where does France deport them to? If they destroy their papers and insist they are in danger if they are returned?
Does France have people waiting in the Embassy to grab those refused before they have a chance to destroy their papers?
Does France have loads of returns agreements?
Is France supposed to lock up thousands of failed applicants to the UK until France can deport them to wherever and is France liable for the cost of doing this?
I’m not sure most of the public actually understand that the Rwanda scheme isn’t offshore processing, it’s a one way ticket. For that reason it is completely beyond the pale.
If it did work as a deterrent (which evidence suggests it won’t) and was more affordable, it would of course present Labour with a moral dilemma. One which I suspect would see political considerations trumping morals.
I don't think it will actually be a one way ticket because, if the Australia scheme is a guide, the UK can't actually wash its hands of the refugees it sends to Rwanda. Sunak is creating a problem for the future Labour government. It will have to do something with the refugees marooned in Rwanda. Meanwhile the Kagame taxi meter will be racking up bills at ever increasing rates.
Labour diluting Rwanda into offshore processing and seeing if the boats resume is a possible way forward. Be interesting to see exactly what the Labour manifesto language on Rwanda is, if the flights do start.
Why not process through the British embassy of other countries, where there is one? No need to build anything new
Again, think how pissed off people who live anywhere near those embassies will be when you have potentially thousands of people camped out queuing outside those embassies. Those embassies are usually in areas where wealthy and influential people live which will make it even harder however wrong that might be.
Every policy has some drawbacks. I decline to worry about queues causing mild inconvenience to some rich people in Mogadishu.
The more substantial issue is simply processing time and capacity. One approach that seems to work quite well is the US Green Card approach. As I understand it, this lists the categories of people who will even be considered (https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-eligibility-categories) and it's transparent about the waiting times and costs. If you're not in a priority category, you can enter their lottery. This seems to offer an alternative to the extremes of "Suffer your horrible situation all your life" and "Try to bribe a people-smuggler to get you a place on a leaky boat". It won't eliminate the boat people option but it should reduce the pressure, simply by giving a legal option which may take a long time but has a non-zero chance of actually working.
The USA has a vast number of illegal immigrants crossing its border. Many of them tear up their documents and declare asylum seeking status as they do so - exactly as they do in UK/EU
So that’s your idea shot down straight away. Why even bother writing it if you are so stupidly uninformed?
There are a lot of people truly terrified that it could work.
Politically, this is also the difference for Sunak of between 30% and 175+ MPs in the GE and 22% and a wipeout.
It works if the client media say it is working, so on that score it's already a big win, whether the punters agree is debatable.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
This is what I find so fascinating about Lib opposition to this policy: they simply can't decide between "it'll never work" and "it's disgusting" because it touches such deep erogenous zones for them.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
No, it is an affront to humanity and an abrogation of our commitments to aid refugees. You might (might?) have a case if successful applicants were returned to the UK from Rwanda after processing. But the fact that even if you are a genuine asylum seeker and found to be so you will not be allowed to return to the UK but forced to stay in a country with a recent history of genocide and civil war - exactly the sorts of situations many of these asylum seekers are fleeing in the first place - means that this is a system which destroys any claims the UK might have to be upholding their international commitments.
Anyone supporting this scheme is really just admitting they don't want Britain playing any part in the asylum system. They are as bad as the MAGA fanatics in the US.
the thing that would 'stop the boats' which the Tories can't propose, and Labour don't seem to be able to propose at the moment, is providing safe and legal means for people to get to the UK.
There's a lot of people currently already in France who want to come to the UK, set up a processing centre in France to deal with them there. it's not going to act as a 'draw' because the system is already doing that. you're not going to stop people trying to get here so deal with them before they try to get here.
"Safe and legal routes" is effectively an open-door policy.
Yes, you could "stop the boats" by making it very easy to claim asylum in the UK and ferrying for free. You'd also then massively increase demand.
The current policy may still leach in 25-40k per year but it prevents it being 250k-400k a year which that would.
Ironically it may be the Scottish Tories who save Yousaf. While Scottish Labour have put down a confidence motion demanding the resignation of the entire Scottish government, including Yousaf, the Tories have put down a motion which does not require Yousaf to resign.
Indeed keeping a wounded Yousaf in place is far better for the SCons than getting him forced out and replaced by Forbes or Regan who would have more appeal in their rural and market town seats. Given current polls for Holyrood too the Tories are forecast to lose seats like the SNP and Labour to gain MSPs at their expense, so it is in Labour's interest for a snap Holyrood poll but not in the interest of the Conservatives any more than the SNP
If 'I let Alex speak for me' Ash became leader, the SNP would be over for a generation. Put that in your cunning plan pipe and smoke it.
I’m not sure most of the public actually understand that the Rwanda scheme isn’t offshore processing, it’s a one way ticket. For that reason it is completely beyond the pale.
If it did work as a deterrent (which evidence suggests it won’t) and was more affordable, it would of course present Labour with a moral dilemma. One which I suspect would see political considerations trumping morals.
I don't think it will actually be a one way ticket because, if the Australia scheme is a guide, the UK can't actually wash its hands of the refugees it sends to Rwanda. Sunak is creating a problem for the future Labour government. It will have to do something with the refugees marooned in Rwanda. Meanwhile the Kagame taxi meter will be racking up bills at ever increasing rates.
I believe that part of the deal is that we have to take back those that are denied asylum in Rwanda, which of course provides an incentive for them to not submit a very good case there!
Comments
What really winds him up is when people offer facts to counter his hopium. How dare you point out that having "cut the number of boats" the number is actually 25% more than last year. Or that having cut taxes that taxes are higher. Or that if Birmingham goping bankrupt proves you can't trust Labour then what does Woking say about the Tories.
Tories used to be rooted in reality. You might not like what we are doing, but here are the facts. Yes it hurt, yes it worked. Now its no it didn't hurt, aren't I brilliant, will you stop asking questions about it hurting.
And many of those will be only be a few thousand on inheritances of hundreds of thousands.
Meanwhile people pay income tax and national insurance month after month, year after year, decade after decade, generation after generation.
All perfectly visible on payslips.
Apparently this tax is one of the reasons why it's so easy to park in Tokyo, because if a bit of land is going to be empty, even only for a few months, the owner will plop a car park on it which yields just enough to cover the tax.
Nonetheless the policy is so disgusting, who cares if the client press says it is an act of genius?
And the fact houses are already difficult to afford for many will only increase concerns and the political cost.
The Scottish Green Party is in a state of open civil war this weekend with party loyalists and rebels launching brutal attacks on each other.
Rebels have demanded co-leaders Patrick Harvie and Lorna Slater go and there’s also been calls for the deselection of all Green MSPs. One rebel said: “I’d be very worried if I was at the top of the party.”
https://archive.is/esfCE
This is especially the case in the UK where housing wealth is a tax-loophole market-distorting fetish. I'd point to the need to make use of housing more efficient (what was it - 28,000,000 second spare bedrooms in the OO sector?), especially around people rattling around in large houses for tax reasons - such as holding on for many years for IHT exemptions to avoid paying some Stamp Duty. And also to the need to create a less distorted market.
Downsizing earlier is far more rational, and needs to be incentivised alongside living in right-sized homes.
So I'd go for two, maybe three, things:
1 - For the unearned wealth, wealth taxes on transfer. That could be an element of CGT, and a more rational iHT allowances / setup.
2 - I'd switch to an approx. 0.5% property-value tax to replace Council Tax. I've argued before for the Proportional Property Tax, which includes abolition of Stamp Duty in the package - which would remove a further distortion from the market.
3 - I'm also attracted to the Swiss idea of a low starting (say 0.1% of per-cent at the low end), but widely-based wealth tax, on property. Perhaps in the UK applying to a large majority of properties.
But TBF there is a bit of an overlap between 2 and 3.
But equally, means testing the state pension creates bad consequences; why bother saving if the government is going to claw back your prudence? So the basic pension really ought to be a basic, frugal but liveable amount, which means moving it up from where it is now. Doing that gradually is the point of the TL.
I reckon that points to two things.
First, those of us fortunate enough to have other pension income shouldn't have quite so favourable tax treatment. Shifting from NI to income tax rates does that, though the Sunak-Hunt policy of cutting NI rates by freezing IT thresholds doesn't do it as well.
Second, the debate needs to be "what's the threshold for changing the Triple Lock?", not whether to axe it now.
Besides, if anything with pensions is going to stick politically, it needs a long run in. Ten years time, maybe?
Always infuriating when you carefully cost out a programme of work, with hours carefully estimated for each task, only for someone to respond that the client only wants to spend £X, so we need to pitch just below that.
Mind, with mo knowledge of the top down figure it is possible to be embarrassingly way off the mark.
Of course, we all know they really think the latter - it's an affront to their ideal of open borders and cultural relativism - but they know that won't resonate with the general public, so they push (unconvincingly) the former.
If it ever did work, two things would happen: (1) they'd instantly switch to the latter argument, and let their real feelings run riot, and, (2) public opinion would rapidly swing behind the policy, so they were in a minority.
https://annaraccoon.com/susanne/
Alex Salmond thinks @mmgeissler’s interview with Patrick Harvie, in which Harvie refused to accept the scientific validity of the Cass Report, was the catalyst for the past week’s events. #BBCSundayShow
https://x.com/staylorish/status/1784514989413290219
If the Daily Mail says it is working it is working.
Anyone supporting this scheme is really just admitting they don't want Britain playing any part in the asylum system. They are as bad as the MAGA fanatics in the US.
That tips the bias towards the poor, which is as it should be.
One of things that interests me about the Triple Lock is the never ending amount of squealing it has generated, in response to what is actually a very small impact. The last time I checked the benefits of more than a decade of the Triple Lock on state pension was around £10-20 per week on state pension over what it would be otherwise.
'98%: Is misinformation being spread about a review of trans youth medicine?'.
That this is a BBC podcast which is so excoriating of trans activists shows how Cass has changed the narrative.
If it did work as a deterrent (which evidence suggests it won’t) and was more affordable, it would of course present Labour with a moral dilemma. One which I suspect would see political considerations trumping morals.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/08/boris-johnson-renounces-us-citizenship-record-2016-uk-foreign-secretary
Though I'm not sure that his renunciation of USA citizenship will help his championing of Mr Chump, who Laura K reported him expressing support for on the BBC this morning.
There's a lot of people currently already in France who want to come to the UK, set up a processing centre in France to deal with them there. it's not going to act as a 'draw' because the system is already doing that. you're not going to stop people trying to get here so deal with them before they try to get here.
Lorna Slater emphatic on Sunday Show that Humza Yousaf is dead to her and only a new FM can get her approval. Lesson for other parties and future governments: don't f*** with the Scottish Greens
https://x.com/HTScotPol/status/1784512883394502665
It’s like opposition to the death penalty: it’s disgusting and it doesn’t work.
You keep saying that those opposed to the Rwanda scheme favour open borders. The current Conservative government has overseen record high immigration, the highest it’s been since at least World War 2. It’s Sunak who appears to be in favour of open borders. We took back control and this is the level of immigration that the Tories have chosen.
Firstly if you are expecting it to replace council tax then you are going to throw up all sorts of anomalies and also find that in much of the country it is raising less tax than existing council tax.
In my 50s I am fortunate enough to be living in a house (still with a mortgage) currently valued at around 600K. It is in a part of the country where 600K buys you a lot of house and a good slice of land. I pay around £4000 a year in Council tax so your suggestion would actually reduce what I paid by £1000 a year. And yet someone living in a much smaller house in London or the SE valued at the same amount could see their new tax being twice or more what they currently pay in Council tax.
Moreover what is wealth? Most countries like Norway which have a wealth tax only include the value of the property minus any outstanding mortgage. After all that bit is not actually yours. If you try that here as a replacement for Council tax you are going to find yourself with a massive shortfall in many parts of the country.
And taxing people when they sell under CGT is only going to make people hang on longer. No one likes paying huge sums of money to the Government so on its own a CGT scheme would make people less likely to downsize rather than more.
I have just written to the First Minister, declining his offer of talks.
Minority government works on trust, he has none.
His priorities are not the people’s priorities and he is clearly only motivated now by political survival.
He should resign and call an election.
It is important to say that this is simply bringing the NHS Constitution *in line with the law*. Its existing guidance on single-sex wards leaves hospitals open to being sued. As does the @NHSConfed guidance eg on single-sex care.
https://x.com/soniasodha/status/1784523037578088670
Its bad enough for the people of the Calais region but if you open a processing centre then not only do you get the people who are trying for a boat but you add in the people who might think they’ve got a chance through official channels.
Plus:
The huge cost involved and the bizarre fiasco of passing a laws stating that a variable like the safety of somewhere is safe, regardless, is a bit like that US state that almost passed a law defined Pi as being 3.0. Bonkers.
‘Almost beyond belief’: axing of UK teacher recruitment scheme will worsen crisis, say critics
The government’s scrapping of the Now Teach scheme, which has overdelivered on targets for older workers, has sparked an outcry
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/apr/28/axing-uk-teacher-recruitment-scheme-now-teach-older-workers
What a fucking mess Starmer will inherit.
If you think how hard it is to build homes where they are needed then think how much harder it is to get a French mayor to agree to a dirty great big processing centre to be sited in their commune.
FWIW, I'm happy to concede I have no idea what goes on in his noggin.
If Labour had proposed getting rid of NI at cost of £46billion the political show broadcasters and journos would have gone total ape at them.
Also the Irish government is explicitly saying that Rwanda is working
Are they lying? Why? What’s in it for them to lie?
Genuine question. I don’t see the benefit unless the Irish are also planning a Rwanda style solution and this is seed sowing
I also don’t understand how Ireland can “legislate to send people back to the UK”. If they can do that (I doubt it) surely we can do the same vis a vis France?
It is about providing timely, scientifically based youth Transgender services, and for determining evidence based treatments for areas such as puberty blockers where this is currently inadequate. It isn't about access to toilet/changing areas/hospitals/refuges as social policy falls outside its remit, nor is it about services and treatments for adults.
The current effect is not what it says in its introduction (to provide high quality evidence based services) but rather to close down all youth Gender services entirely. The Tavistock has closed, the replacement services have not started and are struggling to find staff. Patients on the waiting list simply aren't going to be seen for years.
Do we class that as "working"?
How is that "stopping the boats"?
I wasn’t, for example very worried when large numbers of Albanians who arrived her ‘illegally’ were sent back.
I still don’t think, though, our treatment of boat people as a whole can be described as ‘civilised’ !
It's disgusting because of what it proposed doing to people. And it has involved the UK government knowingly passing a law that says that up is down, even if new evidence comes to light.
It's likely to be ineffective because the government is going to do it to so few people that deterrence is unlikely to kick in. Deterrence is roughly severity multiplied by probability, and the probability in the UK's Rwanda plan is too low to be useful.
I've said before, you have to go big on this sort of thing, or it will collapse as a joke.
Cruel but effective is a worthwhile moral debate. Cruel but ineffective is just evil.
On Council Tax, Current Council Tax is based on values from iirc 1991, and is angled towards lower value properties paying more per value due to the 1:3 Low to High Band ratio (iirc).
You pay ~4k on a ~£600k property. I pay ~2.5k on a Band D ~£450k property also in Notts. Someone by Coxmoor Golf Club pays approximately ~3.5k on a Band F ~£800k property (based on the recently sold 'Hacienda').
Someone known to me in Surrey (London outskirts, 4 bed extended semi, Band E, value £850k) pays £2821. That value is up approximately 12x, maybe 15x since Council Tax bands were set.
It's a godawful mess, and imo an observation of the scale of change that *might* be introduced doesn't remove the need to address the weeping sore. IMO London property has been overvalued and undertaxed relatively for a very long time (just compare Band D numbers across the country), and part of addressing the market distortion is to address the tax system.
It would make sense to bring in change over a period of years, and a higher (or lower) annual tax on a property may help address our distorted housing market, in the same way as ending Government demand side new buyer subsidies also help.
If we can slay the "but property prices will always increase" myth, then so much the better.
I'd also note that the Proportional Property Tax proposals also include an element of redistribution as we have now, and abolition of Stamp Duty - which would remove a further distorting factor and come in on the other side of the equation to an increase in CGT.
I'm say that CGT on property transfer can be balanced between CGT and IHT to provide the appropriate incentives towards efficient use.
It's a mess, and the way to start fixing it is to begin now, even if only in small ways. I'd say Mr Starmer has quite the unique opportunity, after a generation of do-nothing.
🔴Labour: likely to win, but no devolved policies or candidates
🟡SNP: losing seats and power
🔵Tories: losing seats but more influence
🟢Greens: possibly more seats but pro-UK majority
🟠LD: modest gains but no power
https://x.com/paulhutcheon/status/1784481635456417862
Plus I can extract figures and do a CONSORT diagram.
If i have time (urgh...) I could then do a time series, depicting sources by date.
To put it simply, Cass Final is being dealt with as a political document. Treating it like a statistical document may yield light instead of heat...
The Tories are failing to do the basic things well, and instead invoke fantasy solutions like Rwanda. These are not insoluble problems: they just require a bit of competence and a bit of spending.
Alex Salmond’s argument that Ash Regan is the most powerful MSP in the country might have more weight if he moved aside and let her do just a single one of the broadcast interviews. Very odd look.
@RuthDavidsonPC
Quite. It's almost as if he's a man who feels he has a score to settle and it's less about the FM, the government or the country, and it's more about him....
And I imagine in the end - IF Rwanda is done properly - they will stop coming to Britain in the first place. Why make a dangerous effort to get to a country you are then desperate to escape from. Makes no sense
Of course, the government in Dublin might be lying. It’s not unknown
(Worth noting that Lucy Kellaway, who created Now Teacher, is both a good egg and a former FT hack. If she wants to kick up a media fuss, she has allies.)
What do you think the people refused in France will do? That’s right, they’ll get on a boat
The IQ level on this debate is somewhere beneath the earth’s mantle
https://x.com/BBCJamesCook/status/1784495664539357550
When do we think our queen will return? Today? Tomorrow? It’s an intriguing prospect, on that I’m sure all PBers will agree.
It's possible that the Irish government is also telling the truth. It must happen by coincidence occasionally.
I told my Mum about Tennessee Travis and his venomous snake bite. This obviously triggered something as I got an email confirming my insurance a couple of hours later, arranged by my Dad
Oh, and I noticed that I passed half a million steps this morning (day nine)
Indeed keeping a wounded Yousaf in place is far better for the SCons than getting him forced out and replaced by Forbes or Regan who would have more appeal in their rural and market town seats. Given current polls for Holyrood too the Tories are forecast to lose seats like the SNP and Labour to gain MSPs at their expense, so it is in Labour's interest for a snap Holyrood poll but not in the interest of the Conservatives any more than the SNP
What claims by “Transphobes” (sic) has she had to debunk?
The more substantial issue is simply processing time and capacity. One approach that seems to work quite well is the US Green Card approach. As I understand it, this lists the categories of people who will even be considered (https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-eligibility-categories) and it's transparent about the waiting times and costs. If you're not in a priority category, you can enter their lottery. This seems to offer an alternative to the extremes of "Suffer your horrible situation all your life" and "Try to bribe a people-smuggler to get you a place on a leaky boat". It won't eliminate the boat people option but it should reduce the pressure, simply by giving a legal option which may take a long time but has a non-zero chance of actually working.
It will never be treated as a completely scientific issue because the whole issue of gender as distinct from sex, and of gender inconguence is a philosophical and social issue too.
It would also allow people to seek asylum at the first British embassy they get to, rather than everyone going to France. Ultimately asylum seekers may tend to avoid embassies that typically have long queues, or hostile environs, and head to less busy ones, the capacity situation sorting itself out
Where does France deport them to? If they destroy their papers and insist they are in danger if they are returned?
Does France have people waiting in the Embassy to grab those refused before they have a chance to destroy their papers?
Does France have loads of returns agreements?
Is France supposed to lock up thousands of failed applicants to the UK until France can deport them to wherever and is France liable for the cost of doing this?
So that’s your idea shot down straight away. Why even bother writing it if you are so stupidly uninformed?
Yes, you could "stop the boats" by making it very easy to claim asylum in the UK and ferrying for free. You'd also then massively increase demand.
The current policy may still leach in 25-40k per year but it prevents it being 250k-400k a year which that would.