Surprised so little comment here on the escalating tension with Russia.
Mass drone activity over UK (USAF) nuclear bases still ongoing in East Anglia last night I see. Is that 8 consecutive nights now? Apaches and Ospreys have been in the air, several dozen special forces deployed on the ground. And reportedly the activity has also spread to Brize Norton. USAF spokespeople are being grilled daily about this, UK MOD is saying very little.
Meanwhile the Yi Peng 3 is still moored off the coast of Sweden while they figure out negotiations with China to board it and presumably arrest the Russian crew for sabotage.
Last night Kalingrad was completely encircled by US jets.
Bob Woodward reports that in autumn 2022, the cia’s risk assessment of imminent nuclear exchange was 50% (based upon “exquisite” intelligence), before receding after the Russian army escaped to the left bank of the river in Kherson. One wonders what their risk assessment is right now.
Because of policies the Tories made just as they were leaving, net migration will continue to fall this year and next year.
They will providing Labour sticks to Sunak’s changes
However, the acid test will be, as it has always been, have the boats stopped coming ?
That's an interesting perspective. I think it says a lot about the migration debate. Despite boat arrivals being a fraction of overall net migration, they seem to be by far the most salient with the public. So much so that if legal migration numbers fall massively but boat arrivals stay the same or rise, government immigration policy will be seen as a failure, and vice versa.
The importance of the visible side of issues like this. The boats, the hostels & hotels, the backlog etc.
As has been previously said approx 84,000 were asylum applications and the rest were genuine work visa entries and students
Legitimate immigration for work and study should be welcomed, but in a debate that is likely to become very bitter as Trump arrives, it will always be about illegal immigrants and especially those coming over in boats and how Starmer succeeds or otherwise in stopping the boats will be key to the debate
Note that small boat arrivals are themselves a fraction of asylum applications. Most arrive by other legal means and then present themselves.
But I suspect many will see todays headlines and interpret them as meaning that 700k asylum seekers turned up in small boats this year.
Surprised so little comment here on the escalating tension with Russia.
Mass drone activity over UK (USAF) nuclear bases still ongoing in East Anglia last night I see. Is that 8 consecutive nights now? Apaches and Ospreys have been in the air, several dozen special forces deployed on the ground. And reportedly the activity has also spread to Brize Norton. USAF spokespeople are being grilled daily about this, UK MOD is saying very little.
Meanwhile the Yi Peng 3 is still moored off the coast of Sweden while they figure out negotiations with China to board it and presumably arrest the Russian crew for sabotage.
Last night Kalingrad was completely encircled by US jets.
Bob Woodward reports that in autumn 2022, the cia’s risk assessment of imminent nuclear exchange was 50% (based upon “exquisite” intelligence), before receding after the Russian army escaped to the left bank of the river in Kherson. One wonders what their risk assessment is right now.
The risk has reduced, IMV. Putin has self fallacious red line after red line, and when those lines have been crossed, has done very little in response. He has had a couple of years to consider that defeat is possible, if not probable, and the adults in the room will have made it very clear to him what the consequences of the use of nukes will be - both for himself and Russia.
The biggest risk of his using nukes was in late 2022, when his gambit started failing.
Because of policies the Tories made just as they were leaving, net migration will continue to fall this year and next year.
They will providing Labour sticks to Sunak’s changes
However, the acid test will be, as it has always been, have the boats stopped coming ?
That's an interesting perspective. I think it says a lot about the migration debate. Despite boat arrivals being a fraction of overall net migration, they seem to be by far the most salient with the public. So much so that if legal migration numbers fall massively but boat arrivals stay the same or rise, government immigration policy will be seen as a failure, and vice versa.
The importance of the visible side of issues like this. The boats, the hostels & hotels, the backlog etc.
As has been previously said approx 84,000 were asylum applications and the rest were genuine work visa entries and students
Legitimate immigration for work and study should be welcomed, but in a debate that is likely to become very bitter as Trump arrives, it will always be about illegal immigrants and especially those coming over in boats and how Starmer succeeds or otherwise in stopping the boats will be key to the debate
How much of the non-asylum immigration was family members rather than workers or students?
Because of policies the Tories made just as they were leaving, net migration will continue to fall this year and next year.
They will providing Labour sticks to Sunak’s changes
However, the acid test will be, as it has always been, have the boats stopped coming ?
That's an interesting perspective. I think it says a lot about the migration debate. Despite boat arrivals being a fraction of overall net migration, they seem to be by far the most salient with the public. So much so that if legal migration numbers fall massively but boat arrivals stay the same or rise, government immigration policy will be seen as a failure, and vice versa.
The importance of the visible side of issues like this. The boats, the hostels & hotels, the backlog etc.
As has been previously said approx 84,000 were asylum applications and the rest were genuine work visa entries and students
Legitimate immigration for work and study should be welcomed, but in a debate that is likely to become very bitter as Trump arrives, it will always be about illegal immigrants and especially those coming over in boats and how Starmer succeeds or otherwise in stopping the boats will be key to the debate
How much of the non-asylum immigration was family members rather than workers or students?
Thank you for that. I read it via the archive link https://archive.is/0kvzw (not everybody has a Times scrip!) and one quote jumped out
"Other opponents of this bill worry about coercion; about people who don’t want to die being bullied into it. That too is an easy fox to shoot. Very few people secretly want to murder their spouses or parents,"
Well yes, but those that do will be a problem and you can bet your bottom dollar that at least one will happen in the first year and make the news. You have to take edge cases and abuse into account, you can't just wave your hand at legislation and say "she'll be apples".
Mr. Eagles, we've already seen with banking failures how much that can be a huge pain in the arse for people. Cash is a way to bridge that.
And that's without considering that cash is good for people. It doesn't require the internet, an app to be working, approval from the state, or the absence of a malign foreign actor to just work.
Making everything more, indeed solely, reliant on electronic transfers is a recipe for catastrophe.
So you genuinely think that a malign foreign actor targeting the payments system will allow for cash to be withdrawn/deposited with no problems.
Out of curiosity, how many weekly shopping worth of cash do you keep at home?
I keep three months worth just in case. My local ATM is often on the blink, even without help from foreign actors.
Lol! Do you find much need for an ATM in Barnes?
I pay my cleaner in cash and my grandchildren get cash presents.
Why?
They don't have card machines.
It’s a great idea to set them up with bank accounts. Really helps them encourage them to save and think about how to use their money. You’ll never look back.
A bank to bank transfer for a birthday present doesn't have the same impact as a birthday card stuffed with twenties. And the look on their faces. I'd miss all that.
Because of policies the Tories made just as they were leaving, net migration will continue to fall this year and next year.
They will providing Labour sticks to Sunak’s changes
However, the acid test will be, as it has always been, have the boats stopped coming ?
That's an interesting perspective. I think it says a lot about the migration debate. Despite boat arrivals being a fraction of overall net migration, they seem to be by far the most salient with the public. So much so that if legal migration numbers fall massively but boat arrivals stay the same or rise, government immigration policy will be seen as a failure, and vice versa.
The importance of the visible side of issues like this. The boats, the hostels & hotels, the backlog etc.
As has been previously said approx 84,000 were asylum applications and the rest were genuine work visa entries and students
Legitimate immigration for work and study should be welcomed, but in a debate that is likely to become very bitter as Trump arrives, it will always be about illegal immigrants and especially those coming over in boats and how Starmer succeeds or otherwise in stopping the boats will be key to the debate
Note that small boat arrivals are themselves a fraction of asylum applications. Most arrive by other legal means and then present themselves.
But I suspect many will see todays headlines and interpret them as meaning that 700k asylum seekers turned up in small boats this year.
I have little doubt you are right and some will attempt to portray it
I do have a question, what should net migration actually be?
And if it fell to that level, assuming it stayed there would people actually be happy or will it always be too high?
The views inevitably vary. I'd suggest it is something like this:
10% or so want zero or close to it. 15% the <100k repeatedly promised to them and not delivered by the Tories 5% not about the number but all about the processing and illegals 25% primary concern about matching infrastructure with migration 15% primary concern queue jumping for public services especially for illegal migration 30% happy with status quo
Whilst Labour will get migration down significantly I'm not sure which of the above groups they can placate on the issue. They are not building enough.
I do have a question, what should net migration actually be?
And if it fell to that level, assuming it stayed there would people actually be happy or will it always be too high?
The same it was in the early/mid 1990s.
In the early/mid 1990s the elderly (65+) were 16% of the population. Now they are 20%, by the middle of the century they will be 25%, and by the end of the century 31%. Either more old people work, or we have much more automation, or we accept that our labour market will keep on demanding more workers from abroad.
A country cannot endlessly import more workers* to avoid the demographic transition. That challenge is coming. Immigration will only delay it.
* Unless you only give them temporary residency rights and deport them at pension age with zero pension accrual.
I do have a question, what should net migration actually be?
And if it fell to that level, assuming it stayed there would people actually be happy or will it always be too high?
The same it was in the early/mid 1990s.
In the early/mid 1990s the elderly (65+) were 16% of the population. Now they are 20%, by the middle of the century they will be 25%, and by the end of the century 31%. Either more old people work, or we have much more automation, or we accept that our labour market will keep on demanding more workers from abroad.
Because of policies the Tories made just as they were leaving, net migration will continue to fall this year and next year.
They will providing Labour sticks to Sunak’s changes
However, the acid test will be, as it has always been, have the boats stopped coming ?
That's an interesting perspective. I think it says a lot about the migration debate. Despite boat arrivals being a fraction of overall net migration, they seem to be by far the most salient with the public. So much so that if legal migration numbers fall massively but boat arrivals stay the same or rise, government immigration policy will be seen as a failure, and vice versa.
The importance of the visible side of issues like this. The boats, the hostels & hotels, the backlog etc.
As has been previously said approx 84,000 were asylum applications and the rest were genuine work visa entries and students
Legitimate immigration for work and study should be welcomed, but in a debate that is likely to become very bitter as Trump arrives, it will always be about illegal immigrants and especially those coming over in boats and how Starmer succeeds or otherwise in stopping the boats will be key to the debate
How much of the non-asylum immigration was family members rather than workers or students?
Two anecdotes:
One doctor from India. Now here with his wife and two children.
One post-grad student from India. Then got a job. Now got citizenship.
I wonder in 2016 if you asked Leavers if they had to choose what they’d prefer I doubt they’d have wanted the vast amount of migrants to be coming from Nigeria, Pakistan and India .
And if you had told them out of the EU net migration would almost triple would Brexit have happened .
I do have a question, what should net migration actually be?
And if it fell to that level, assuming it stayed there would people actually be happy or will it always be too high?
It should be at a level that strengthens growth and supports our Universities
The real question, which isn't answered, is how many 'asylum seekers' we should accept and the effect it has on our health and education requirements
Trouble is, that was the calculation that the Johnson government made, and it turned out that the answer was 'the thick end of a million'. Hence the hasty reverse ferret, especially on university places.
Asylum is tiny by comparison, and putting asylum seekers in quote marks isn't a classy thing for a classy man to do.
Opponents of actual cash are proponents, unwittingly (I hope), of making us alarmingly vulnerable to unfortunate systems failures and errors, and, worse, deliberate hacking attempts by foreign actors.
This is one of the sillier arguments to be made by the Luddites.
If there is a 'deliberate' hack of the systems it is very unlikely to seize up the banking system to stop card payments but allow cash to be processed fine.
It is likely to take out the ATMs and the ability of financial systems to deal with cash, you will be unlikely to withdraw cash over the counter at banks or at the post office. Ditto depositing it.
The likes of Tesco et al do not have the infrastructure to cope with all their customers switching to cash.
Then there's the issue of the physical amount of notes do not exist to match demand.
Up there with “I won’t get a mortgage if I use my bank card in the pub” levels of tin-hattery.
Only on PB.
Besides personal abuse do you have any evidence to the contrary?
I would assume that a mortgage broker, who is in regular contract with the banks, making numerous mortgage applications every day, talking to the babies about why an application is rejected, or a reduced loan amount offered, etc, will have developed an understanding of the important factors.
All you've offered is abuse. It's really unpleasant.
Any quick glance though financial advice websites will show many of them mention evidence of gambling as a negative in a mortgage application. Something Anabob was ridiculing on the last thread.
Considering problem drinking and gambling do have financial implications then it is right and proper that mortgage companies look at these.
They should look at how any spending on these fits the general shape of the finances of the applicant. Me putting a tenner on City or buying a box of wine at Majestic should not be a problem. Someone losing £1 000 a week in online casinos should.
Putting a tenner on City at the moment is a bit problematic TBF. It rather reveals a financial naivety any sensible lender would be wary of.
I didn't say whether my bet on City (Leicester City in my case) is to win or to lose!
ONS have revealed new figures, and they show how the Tories utterly failed on immigration: Net migration for 2022-3 updated to 906k! And 728k for 2023-4.
We are a country lost. No wonder people are voting for legalised suicide!
The previous government pursued an open-borders policy that the left of the Democratic Party could only dream of.
But, they lied to their voters that they were doing the opposite.
No wonder Reform polled so well.
Rishi to be fair to him introduced a higher Visa salary requirement and end to migrants bringing over dependents which has seen immigration fall as the figures show today.
Boris did end EU free movement but just expanded immigration from the non EU
I do have a question, what should net migration actually be?
And if it fell to that level, assuming it stayed there would people actually be happy or will it always be too high?
The same it was in the early/mid 1990s.
In the early/mid 1990s the elderly (65+) were 16% of the population. Now they are 20%, by the middle of the century they will be 25%, and by the end of the century 31%. Either more old people work, or we have much more automation, or we accept that our labour market will keep on demanding more workers from abroad.
Because of policies the Tories made just as they were leaving, net migration will continue to fall this year and next year.
They will providing Labour sticks to Sunak’s changes
However, the acid test will be, as it has always been, have the boats stopped coming ?
That's an interesting perspective. I think it says a lot about the migration debate. Despite boat arrivals being a fraction of overall net migration, they seem to be by far the most salient with the public. So much so that if legal migration numbers fall massively but boat arrivals stay the same or rise, government immigration policy will be seen as a failure, and vice versa.
The importance of the visible side of issues like this. The boats, the hostels & hotels, the backlog etc.
As has been previously said approx 84,000 were asylum applications and the rest were genuine work visa entries and students
Legitimate immigration for work and study should be welcomed, but in a debate that is likely to become very bitter as Trump arrives, it will always be about illegal immigrants and especially those coming over in boats and how Starmer succeeds or otherwise in stopping the boats will be key to the debate
How much of the non-asylum immigration was family members rather than workers or students?
I do have a question, what should net migration actually be?
And if it fell to that level, assuming it stayed there would people actually be happy or will it always be too high?
The same it was in the early/mid 1990s.
In the early/mid 1990s the elderly (65+) were 16% of the population. Now they are 20%, by the middle of the century they will be 25%, and by the end of the century 31%. Either more old people work, or we have much more automation, or we accept that our labour market will keep on demanding more workers from abroad.
Or younger British people have more babies
Or even younger British people get off their arses and work in the care and farm produce industry..
Surprised so little comment here on the escalating tension with Russia.
Mass drone activity over UK (USAF) nuclear bases still ongoing in East Anglia last night I see. Is that 8 consecutive nights now? Apaches and Ospreys have been in the air, several dozen special forces deployed on the ground. And reportedly the activity has also spread to Brize Norton. USAF spokespeople are being grilled daily about this, UK MOD is saying very little.
Meanwhile the Yi Peng 3 is still moored off the coast of Sweden while they figure out negotiations with China to board it and presumably arrest the Russian crew for sabotage.
Last night Kalingrad was completely encircled by US jets.
Bob Woodward reports that in autumn 2022, the cia’s risk assessment of imminent nuclear exchange was 50% (based upon “exquisite” intelligence), before receding after the Russian army escaped to the left bank of the river in Kherson. One wonders what their risk assessment is right now.
The risk has reduced, IMV. Putin has self fallacious red line after red line, and when those lines have been crossed, has done very little in response. He has had a couple of years to consider that defeat is possible, if not probable, and the adults in the room will have made it very clear to him what the consequences of the use of nukes will be - both for himself and Russia.
The biggest risk of his using nukes was in late 2022, when his gambit started failing.
I conclude exactly the opposite and think you are being pretty complacent. Some major red lines have now been crossed that we would all have considered unthinkable just a few short years ago. Russian sovereign territory has been invaded using a plethora of western tanks and armoured vehicles. And medium range missiles are targeting Russia, that so I gather require active western support to operate.
It would be reasonable to conclude that Russia’s deterrence to external attack has failed. And it’s not far fetched to think there are voices in Moscow right now making the case that the only way to restore deterrence is via a demonstrative nuclear detonation. After the IMBM launch didn’t do the job.
I do have a question, what should net migration actually be?
And if it fell to that level, assuming it stayed there would people actually be happy or will it always be too high?
The same it was in the early/mid 1990s.
In the early/mid 1990s the elderly (65+) were 16% of the population. Now they are 20%, by the middle of the century they will be 25%, and by the end of the century 31%. Either more old people work, or we have much more automation, or we accept that our labour market will keep on demanding more workers from abroad.
Or younger British people have more babies
True although that's got a 20 year lead time in terms of the labour market. Anyway, I've had three so don't blame me. Although they may not align with Leon's colour chart...
Surprised so little comment here on the escalating tension with Russia.
Mass drone activity over UK (USAF) nuclear bases still ongoing in East Anglia last night I see. Is that 8 consecutive nights now? Apaches and Ospreys have been in the air, several dozen special forces deployed on the ground. And reportedly the activity has also spread to Brize Norton. USAF spokespeople are being grilled daily about this, UK MOD is saying very little.
Meanwhile the Yi Peng 3 is still moored off the coast of Sweden while they figure out negotiations with China to board it and presumably arrest the Russian crew for sabotage.
Last night Kalingrad was completely encircled by US jets.
Bob Woodward reports that in autumn 2022, the cia’s risk assessment of imminent nuclear exchange was 50% (based upon “exquisite” intelligence), before receding after the Russian army escaped to the left bank of the river in Kherson. One wonders what their risk assessment is right now.
The last week or so, I've seen various warships including one of the new carriers out on what I assume are training exercises south of the island (or alternatively are protecting the island from becoming the Russians' bridgehead)
It regularly amuses me how passionate people get about cash v cards. It's worse than Brexit.
FWIW, it irritates me if vendors only accept one or the other: I like a choice, and a choice will always be needed.
You need a means of exchange without the Internet for trade to continue.
Does it “annoy” you when online retailers accept only digital payments? Would you legislate to force them to accept cash?
Er, Anabob, it's quite something when I prefer Casino's arguments to yours. We get that you favour giving up cash, and think its use is silly. Some firms refuse to accept cash, and go without our custom some of the time. I don't think you favour making it illegal, and some of us find it sometimes convenient. Why not leave it there?
I couldn't agree more Nick
Everything about @Anabobazina and cash has been discussed ad infinitum and time to move on
It is frankly boring
Again, I didn't bring it up. It was in the thread header yesterday (and this discussion is a hangover of that). I could only assume that the moderators wanted it discussed hence their prompting it in the threader. Maybe that was the wrong assumption??
My photo quota for today, in the spirit of appropriate What3Words locations.
An anti-wheelchair chicane partly blocking an underpass through a railway embankment at Lansdowne Road, Urmston, at the location ... verifying.fencing.skills .
While I still favour assisted dying becoming law, canada still worries me
4.1% of all canadian deaths a year being due to MAiD still seems huge
Also MAiD was extended to more people not by the canadian parliament but by law courts under the aegis of human rights....couldn't happen here? Unconvinced
Not entirely, Canada's Liberal majority Parliament passed assisted dying in 2016 then expanded it under the Liberal and NDP majority in 2021.
Polievre's Conservatives have promised to cut back assisted dying if they beat Trudeau's Liberal governing party at the Canadian election next year
I do wish people would stop jumping on @Anabobazina. They have views and should be able to air them. Also, as it happens they were literally responding to a thread header by somebody else!
Funny how people try to moderate only those they don’t agree with
I do have a question, what should net migration actually be?
Net migration should be X=A+B+C-(D+E), where
A = the number of empty houses, and B = the number of houses that can be built in a year C = some kind of fudge factor (time delay, migrants are more likely to have babies, etc) D = the number of houses required by those already here E = another fudge factor (those you didn't build last year, etc)
"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."
What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?
You shouldn't impose your moral concerns on others who don't share them. Assisted dying will not be obligatory. You can opt out if you have moral concerns! To oppose this bill is grossly illibersl.
You assuming that a choice that a person makes does not have consequences for others or society.
Which is grossly illiberal, as well.
How about abortion?
It depends on whether you consuder the unborn child to be 'in society'.
That's the problem with moral arguments. Others may have different morals. I can see the moral argument both fkr banning and legalising assisted dying. And indeed abortion. And indeed almost any issue you care to think of.
I agree. People have different takes on morality. But you shouldn't attempt to impose your moral views on the personal moral choices of others.
Society imposes a moral view on people every day. Through the law.
Most of law isn't a moral view e.g. driving on the left, raising taxes etc.
I do object to laws that impose a moral view on my personal choices that don't materially effect anyone else. There are a few.
Would the law that prevents you marrying two people simultaneously and consensually be an example?
I think that's a really good example of the kind of law that is based on the historic relationship between the civil and moral authorities.
It is an interesting and mostly unquestioned survival of an explicitly Christian tradition. Many perhaps assume it is sort of universal. It isn't. Not even in the Old Testament tradition.
Marriage between one man and one woman for life is clearly Biblical and clearly preached by Christ.
Most other religions also have marriage at their heart
Nonsense, many Biblical characters were polygamous, so were many characters in Hindu myth.
I do have a question, what should net migration actually be?
And if it fell to that level, assuming it stayed there would people actually be happy or will it always be too high?
The same it was in the early/mid 1990s.
In the early/mid 1990s the elderly (65+) were 16% of the population. Now they are 20%, by the middle of the century they will be 25%, and by the end of the century 31%. Either more old people work, or we have much more automation, or we accept that our labour market will keep on demanding more workers from abroad.
Or younger British people have more babies
To do that they need houses rather than living with their parents til their thirties. To get the houses we need builders....
And even if we start now its not going to produce any new workers for at least 18.75 years.......
I wonder in 2016 if you asked Leavers if they had to choose what they’d prefer I doubt they’d have wanted the vast amount of migrants to be coming from Nigeria, Pakistan and India .
And if you had told them out of the EU net migration would almost triple would Brexit have happened .
I'd rather have Nigerian nurses than East European Roma turnip pickers.
But it wouldn't have been a choice if the UK was still in the EU.
As we would have received the immigrants we did plus more from Europe.
That said the history of immigration control shows that any loophole in the rules will be used, hence the 'dependents' of 'students'.
I do have a question, what should net migration actually be?
And if it fell to that level, assuming it stayed there would people actually be happy or will it always be too high?
It should be at a level that strengthens growth and supports our Universities
The real question, which isn't answered, is how many 'asylum seekers' we should accept and the effect it has on our health and education requirements
Trouble is, that was the calculation that the Johnson government made, and it turned out that the answer was 'the thick end of a million'. Hence the hasty reverse ferret, especially on university places.
Asylum is tiny by comparison, and putting asylum seekers in quote marks isn't a classy thing for a classy man to do.
Yes and I apologise for doing that - it was unnecessary
ONS have revealed new figures, and they show how the Tories utterly failed on immigration: Net migration for 2022-3 updated to 906k! And 728k for 2023-4.
We are a country lost. No wonder people are voting for legalised suicide!
Thank you for that. I read it via the archive link https://archive.is/0kvzw (not everybody has a Times scrip!) and one quote jumped out
"Other opponents of this bill worry about coercion; about people who don’t want to die being bullied into it. That too is an easy fox to shoot. Very few people secretly want to murder their spouses or parents,"
Well yes, but those that do will be a problem and you can bet your bottom dollar that at least one will happen in the first year and make the news. You have to take edge cases and abuse into account, you can't just wave your hand at legislation and say "she'll be apples".
For a country where there is very little murder, we have tons of laws on the subject.
We actually have very little serious crime. But, again, tons of laws.
I do have a question, what should net migration actually be?
Net migration should be X=A+B+C, where
A = the number of empty houses, and B = the number of houses that can be built in a year C = some kind of fudge factor (time delay, migrants are more likely to have babies, etc)
Otherwise you are just asking for trouble.
That's a reasonable formula but you could adjust it to include infrastructure and public services capacity as well.
Surprised so little comment here on the escalating tension with Russia.
Mass drone activity over UK (USAF) nuclear bases still ongoing in East Anglia last night I see. Is that 8 consecutive nights now? Apaches and Ospreys have been in the air, several dozen special forces deployed on the ground. And reportedly the activity has also spread to Brize Norton. USAF spokespeople are being grilled daily about this, UK MOD is saying very little.
Meanwhile the Yi Peng 3 is still moored off the coast of Sweden while they figure out negotiations with China to board it and presumably arrest the Russian crew for sabotage.
Last night Kalingrad was completely encircled by US jets.
Bob Woodward reports that in autumn 2022, the cia’s risk assessment of imminent nuclear exchange was 50% (based upon “exquisite” intelligence), before receding after the Russian army escaped to the left bank of the river in Kherson. One wonders what their risk assessment is right now.
The risk has reduced, IMV. Putin has self fallacious red line after red line, and when those lines have been crossed, has done very little in response. He has had a couple of years to consider that defeat is possible, if not probable, and the adults in the room will have made it very clear to him what the consequences of the use of nukes will be - both for himself and Russia.
The biggest risk of his using nukes was in late 2022, when his gambit started failing.
I conclude exactly the opposite and think you are being pretty complacent. Some major red lines have now been crossed that we would all have considered unthinkable just a few short years ago. Russian sovereign territory has been invaded using a plethora of western tanks and armoured vehicles. And medium range missiles are targeting Russia, that so I gather require active western support to operate.
It would be reasonable to conclude that Russia’s deterrence to external attack has failed. And it’s not far fetched to think there are voices in Moscow right now making the case that the only way to restore deterrence is via a demonstrative nuclear detonation. After the IMBM launch didn’t do the job.
Yes, there will be such voices. And there will be many more voices saying: "For God's sake, no!"
There is no logic in Russia using a tactical or strategic nuke. It gives no battlefield advantage, will lose them friends abroad, and damn them in the history that Putin holds so dear. Using nukes is all lose for Russia, no win.
Because of this, my view is that usage was more likely if Putin suffered a large shock, as he did back in mid-2022. He and his team have had a couple of years to get used to the idea of defeat, and for the adults to tell them what use of a nuke would mean.
I do wish people would stop jumping on @Anabobazina. They have views and should be able to air them. Also, as it happens they were literally responding to a thread header by somebody else!
Funny how people try to moderate only those they don’t agree with
I do wish people would stop jumping on @Anabobazina. They have views and should be able to air them. Also, as it happens they were literally responding to a thread header by somebody else!
Funny how people try to moderate only those they don’t agree with
He loves it really! He does a sterling job of defending his position, some might even say he has earned the real crown of the cash debates.
I wonder in 2016 if you asked Leavers if they had to choose what they’d prefer I doubt they’d have wanted the vast amount of migrants to be coming from Nigeria, Pakistan and India .
And if you had told them out of the EU net migration would almost triple would Brexit have happened .
Pakistan, India and Nigeria have a huge number of middle-class graduates who speak English. What's the problem, it's the new Anglosphere.
I do have a question, what should net migration actually be?
And if it fell to that level, assuming it stayed there would people actually be happy or will it always be too high?
It should be a hell of lot less that 900k a year unless we are suddenly capable and willing to build an entire new Birmingham worth of roads, railways, houses, factories, offices, parks, sports centres, hospitals, schools, shops and so on roughly every 15 months.
Also this revision makes me think we do not even have an accurate idea of population and migration in the UK. It's rather like the EU settlement scheme estimates which were off by absolutely miles.
Would anybody be surprised if the UK actually had another 2, 3, maybe 5 million people living here than officially believed?
Surprised so little comment here on the escalating tension with Russia.
Mass drone activity over UK (USAF) nuclear bases still ongoing in East Anglia last night I see. Is that 8 consecutive nights now? Apaches and Ospreys have been in the air, several dozen special forces deployed on the ground. And reportedly the activity has also spread to Brize Norton. USAF spokespeople are being grilled daily about this, UK MOD is saying very little.
Meanwhile the Yi Peng 3 is still moored off the coast of Sweden while they figure out negotiations with China to board it and presumably arrest the Russian crew for sabotage.
Last night Kalingrad was completely encircled by US jets.
Bob Woodward reports that in autumn 2022, the cia’s risk assessment of imminent nuclear exchange was 50% (based upon “exquisite” intelligence), before receding after the Russian army escaped to the left bank of the river in Kherson. One wonders what their risk assessment is right now.
The risk has reduced, IMV. Putin has self fallacious red line after red line, and when those lines have been crossed, has done very little in response. He has had a couple of years to consider that defeat is possible, if not probable, and the adults in the room will have made it very clear to him what the consequences of the use of nukes will be - both for himself and Russia.
The biggest risk of his using nukes was in late 2022, when his gambit started failing.
I generally agree. Everyone is playing an escalatory hand pre-Trump for maximum leverage.
🚨 BREAKING: Net migration fell by 20% to 728,000 from 906,000 in the year from June 2023 to June 2024
The number of asylum applicants in the period was 84,000 - a relatively small fraction of the whole.
Add in asylum and that’s Britain’s 4th biggest city - in population terms - arriving in ONE YEAR
The asylum numbers are already included.
Yebbut... add in the non-migration numbers again and you have Britain's 45th largest town - arriving in ONE DAY
I know Big G and I are trying to avoid this, but how many people die every year?
That is so kind but following a series of recent reviews and scans my haematologist, cardiologist and vascular surgeon have all signed me off [ with occasional blood tests] for a year and whilst I am not as mobile as I was, I am grateful for so much and look forward to a few years ahead
"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."
What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?
You shouldn't impose your moral concerns on others who don't share them. Assisted dying will not be obligatory. You can opt out if you have moral concerns! To oppose this bill is grossly illibersl.
You assuming that a choice that a person makes does not have consequences for others or society.
Which is grossly illiberal, as well.
How about abortion?
It depends on whether you consuder the unborn child to be 'in society'.
That's the problem with moral arguments. Others may have different morals. I can see the moral argument both fkr banning and legalising assisted dying. And indeed abortion. And indeed almost any issue you care to think of.
I agree. People have different takes on morality. But you shouldn't attempt to impose your moral views on the personal moral choices of others.
Society imposes a moral view on people every day. Through the law.
Most of law isn't a moral view e.g. driving on the left, raising taxes etc.
I do object to laws that impose a moral view on my personal choices that don't materially effect anyone else. There are a few.
Would the law that prevents you marrying two people simultaneously and consensually be an example?
There isn't a law that prevents me having two or more partners. Marriage in church is a religious thing. Marriage is also a legal contract that has e.g. tax implications.
And your point is??
It was to answer your question "Would the law that prevents you marrying two people simultaneously and consensually be an example?"
The answer is no for the reasons I gave. Practical implications not moral ones.
I agree. There would, however, be moral objections (I'm sure) if proposals were raised to expand marriage (with careful consideration of tax, IHT etc implications, e.g. either nomination of a main partner or allowances being split between partners to end up the same overall). Civil partnerships covering more than one person would be less controversial.
I agree. The word marriage has religious connotations so any fiddling with its meaning would be controversial. Look at gay marriage as an example. Harems would be even more controversial.
I do have a question, what should net migration actually be?
And if it fell to that level, assuming it stayed there would people actually be happy or will it always be too high?
The same it was in the early/mid 1990s.
In the early/mid 1990s the elderly (65+) were 16% of the population. Now they are 20%, by the middle of the century they will be 25%, and by the end of the century 31%. Either more old people work, or we have much more automation, or we accept that our labour market will keep on demanding more workers from abroad.
Or younger British people have more babies
Be careful what you wish for though.
I was trying to help a woman last week: in her late 20s, single, 3 children, eldest two both have issues, eldest receives DLA, she's been told to apply for DLA for child 2. They're on UC, in (unsatisfactory) social housing, she hasn't worked for 9 years, has lots of debt she can never pay...
On the bright side, she's having another baby, due next month. So that should help the demographics.
I do have a question, what should net migration actually be?
And if it fell to that level, assuming it stayed there would people actually be happy or will it always be too high?
One political question Britain may eventually have is whether opposition is mainly to high levels of net migration, or to high levels of immigration.
It would be possible to have high levels of immigration and low levels of net migration, but this might also upset some people.
It depends also on who the migrants are as well as how many of them there are.
This is why asylum seekers are so contentious even though they are a small proportion of the total number.
The distinction between “asylum” and “regular migration” is an artificial distinction.
Many people in “regular migration” have reason for coming here that aren’t just economic.
Many “asylum seekers” have partially economic motivations for coming here.
Consider an Indian chap, I used to work with. Came here on a work visa. A part of the reason for leaving India is that he is a Christian and the RSS types burn down his local church on occasion.
I wonder in 2016 if you asked Leavers if they had to choose what they’d prefer I doubt they’d have wanted the vast amount of migrants to be coming from Nigeria, Pakistan and India .
And if you had told them out of the EU net migration would almost triple would Brexit have happened .
I'd rather have Nigerian nurses than East European Roma turnip pickers.
But it wouldn't have been a choice if the UK was still in the EU.
As we would have received the immigrants we did plus more from Europe.
That said the history of immigration control shows that any loophole in the rules will be used, hence the 'dependents' of 'students'.
It wasn't a loophole. The Conservative government objective was to increase the number of overseas students to 500k per year, to encourage that they made it easier to bring over families. They also specifically targetted countries where students of post graduate age tend to have families. It was a policy to meet a govt objective not a loophole.
I wonder in 2016 if you asked Leavers if they had to choose what they’d prefer I doubt they’d have wanted the vast amount of migrants to be coming from Nigeria, Pakistan and India .
And if you had told them out of the EU net migration would almost triple would Brexit have happened .
I'd rather have Nigerian nurses than East European Roma turnip pickers.
But it wouldn't have been a choice if the UK was still in the EU.
As we would have received the immigrants we did plus more from Europe.
That said the history of immigration control shows that any loophole in the rules will be used, hence the 'dependents' of 'students'.
It seems to be a bizarre thought process.
As a patient, I am interested in my nurse's competence, not his/her race or nationality. Fluency in English may be a factor, as that can affect understanding.
I need to know they work with and to UK values and standards. My medical conditions are managed by ME, with support from my clinical team - not the other way round.
To riff off the header, if there existed a system where the medical staff get to decide whether the patients lives or dies by active intervention - which is not proposed here - I require a clinician from such a culture coming here to work by UK standards, not their own, and to be competent to do so.
I have occasionally noticed minor attitudinal differences from clinicians from different national backgrounds, but nothing to concern me.
Thank you for that. I read it via the archive link https://archive.is/0kvzw (not everybody has a Times scrip!) and one quote jumped out
"Other opponents of this bill worry about coercion; about people who don’t want to die being bullied into it. That too is an easy fox to shoot. Very few people secretly want to murder their spouses or parents,"
Well yes, but those that do will be a problem and you can bet your bottom dollar that at least one will happen in the first year and make the news. You have to take edge cases and abuse into account, you can't just wave your hand at legislation and say "she'll be apples".
I think coercion would work the other way.
If ever I decide to take the assisted dying route, my daughters would try their damnest to coerce their father out of it.
🚨 BREAKING: Net migration fell by 20% to 728,000 from 906,000 in the year from June 2023 to June 2024
So just two Coventries instead of three. Well that's all right then: I was worried for a bit. We should be able to build 728,000 houses in a year, easy. Whew, that's a relief and no mistake.
I wonder in 2016 if you asked Leavers if they had to choose what they’d prefer I doubt they’d have wanted the vast amount of migrants to be coming from Nigeria, Pakistan and India .
And if you had told them out of the EU net migration would almost triple would Brexit have happened .
I'd rather have Nigerian nurses than East European Roma turnip pickers.
But it wouldn't have been a choice if the UK was still in the EU.
As we would have received the immigrants we did plus more from Europe.
That said the history of immigration control shows that any loophole in the rules will be used, hence the 'dependents' of 'students'.
It wasn't a loophole. The Conservative government objective was to increase the number of overseas students to 500k per year, to encourage that they made it easier to bring over families. They also specifically targetted countries where students of post graduate age tend to have families. It was a policy to meet a govt objective not a loophole.
The policy may have been to increase overseas students, the increase in dependents was the unexpected side effect.
Even more so when the students turned out to be 'students' with multiple dependents.
This may have been a case of politicians thinking back to their own personal experiences.
Lots of politicians have been to university, very few of them would have brought any dependents with them.
Surprised so little comment here on the escalating tension with Russia.
Mass drone activity over UK (USAF) nuclear bases still ongoing in East Anglia last night I see. Is that 8 consecutive nights now? Apaches and Ospreys have been in the air, several dozen special forces deployed on the ground. And reportedly the activity has also spread to Brize Norton. USAF spokespeople are being grilled daily about this, UK MOD is saying very little.
Meanwhile the Yi Peng 3 is still moored off the coast of Sweden while they figure out negotiations with China to board it and presumably arrest the Russian crew for sabotage.
Last night Kalingrad was completely encircled by US jets.
Bob Woodward reports that in autumn 2022, the cia’s risk assessment of imminent nuclear exchange was 50% (based upon “exquisite” intelligence), before receding after the Russian army escaped to the left bank of the river in Kherson. One wonders what their risk assessment is right now.
The risk has reduced, IMV. Putin has self fallacious red line after red line, and when those lines have been crossed, has done very little in response. He has had a couple of years to consider that defeat is possible, if not probable, and the adults in the room will have made it very clear to him what the consequences of the use of nukes will be - both for himself and Russia.
The biggest risk of his using nukes was in late 2022, when his gambit started failing.
I conclude exactly the opposite and think you are being pretty complacent. Some major red lines have now been crossed that we would all have considered unthinkable just a few short years ago. Russian sovereign territory has been invaded using a plethora of western tanks and armoured vehicles. And medium range missiles are targeting Russia, that so I gather require active western support to operate.
It would be reasonable to conclude that Russia’s deterrence to external attack has failed. And it’s not far fetched to think there are voices in Moscow right now making the case that the only way to restore deterrence is via a demonstrative nuclear detonation. After the IMBM launch didn’t do the job.
Yes, there will be such voices. And there will be many more voices saying: "For God's sake, no!"
There is no logic in Russia using a tactical or strategic nuke. It gives no battlefield advantage, will lose them friends abroad, and damn them in the history that Putin holds so dear. Using nukes is all lose for Russia, no win.
Because of this, my view is that usage was more likely if Putin suffered a large shock, as he did back in mid-2022. He and his team have had a couple of years to get used to the idea of defeat, and for the adults to tell them what use of a nuke would mean.
I just drafted a reply that I have deleted before posting, on the slim chance it gives the other side ideas they may not have had. But if you think about this properly and calmly and try and put yourself in the logic tree of Putin himself, the risk is higher than you have convinced yourself.
I wonder in 2016 if you asked Leavers if they had to choose what they’d prefer I doubt they’d have wanted the vast amount of migrants to be coming from Nigeria, Pakistan and India .
And if you had told them out of the EU net migration would almost triple would Brexit have happened .
I'd rather have Nigerian nurses than East European Roma turnip pickers.
But it wouldn't have been a choice if the UK was still in the EU.
As we would have received the immigrants we did plus more from Europe.
That said the history of immigration control shows that any loophole in the rules will be used, hence the 'dependents' of 'students'.
It wasn't a loophole. The Conservative government objective was to increase the number of overseas students to 500k per year, to encourage that they made it easier to bring over families. They also specifically targetted countries where students of post graduate age tend to have families. It was a policy to meet a govt objective not a loophole.
The policy may have been to increase overseas students, the increase in dependents was the unexpected side effect.
Even more so when the students turned out to be 'students' with multiple dependents.
This may have been a case of politicians thinking back to their own personal experiences.
Lots of politicians have been to university, very few of them would have brought any dependents with them.
How can it be unexpected, when it was the policy change?
It's like providing free cakes and being surprised when people eat them.
EU nationals be they students or general workers were less likely to bring family members . Basic geography, it’s much easier and cheaper to pop and see family . Also EU nationals tend to be younger .
Leavers just simply refuse to accept facts or reality . So we get this constant denial .
In the EU we had almost two thirds less net migration . That’s a fact !
And Leave wouldn’t have won the referendum if the slogan was vote Leave to increase immigration !
Would anybody be surprised if the UK actually had another 2, 3, maybe 5 million people living here than officially believed?
I spoke to an association of local authorities once and they were adamant that that was the case. Some analyses of sewer usage and food buying indicate that this may be the case, but other explanations (disposal of food past sell-by date) are available. I don't know how you would resolve this
I do have a question, what should net migration actually be?
And if it fell to that level, assuming it stayed there would people actually be happy or will it always be too high?
The same it was in the early/mid 1990s.
In the early/mid 1990s the elderly (65+) were 16% of the population. Now they are 20%, by the middle of the century they will be 25%, and by the end of the century 31%. Either more old people work, or we have much more automation, or we accept that our labour market will keep on demanding more workers from abroad.
Or younger British people have more babies
Be careful what you wish for though.
I was trying to help a woman last week: in her late 20s, single, 3 children, eldest two both have issues, eldest receives DLA, she's been told to apply for DLA for child 2. They're on UC, in (unsatisfactory) social housing, she hasn't worked for 9 years, has lots of debt she can never pay...
On the bright side, she's having another baby, due next month. So that should help the demographics.
More younger people getting married and then having children especially.
Though even that woman is at least more invested in the future and had children, even if she does not have a high flying career.
The reality is uber feminism spreads the lie most women can have high flying professional and managerial careers and can put that even above motherhood. The reality is most can't but most women can be mothers and have children.
VP elect Vance could have been more diplomatic about childless cat ladies but his point more women need to have more children was correct
My photo quota for today, in the spirit of appropriate What3Words locations.
An anti-wheelchair chicane partly blocking an underpass through a railway embankment at Lansdowne Road, Urmston, at the location ... verifying.fencing.skills .
I do have a question, what should net migration actually be?
Net migration should be X=A+B+C-(D+E), where
A = the number of empty houses, and B = the number of houses that can be built in a year C = some kind of fudge factor (time delay, migrants are more likely to have babies, etc) D = the number of houses required by those already here E = another fudge factor (those you didn't build last year, etc)
Otherwise you are just asking for trouble.
Its more complicated than that for several reasons.
Firstly, you seem to be assuming that there is sufficient housing for the existing population and that their demands for housing are static. Neither are true.
Secondly, such a simplistic approach might result in us turning people we actually need simply because they apply later than some we don't.
Thirdly, the movement of people is very dynamic with hundreds of thousands arriving and departing each month. So far monitoring that with any degree of accuracy has proven beyond us.
It may be some sort of guide but it is no more than that. I certainly agree that those who want more immigration should be required to say where and when the additional accommodation will be provided.
I do have a question, what should net migration actually be?
And if it fell to that level, assuming it stayed there would people actually be happy or will it always be too high?
The same it was in the early/mid 1990s.
In the early/mid 1990s the elderly (65+) were 16% of the population. Now they are 20%, by the middle of the century they will be 25%, and by the end of the century 31%. Either more old people work, or we have much more automation, or we accept that our labour market will keep on demanding more workers from abroad.
Or younger British people have more babies
Be careful what you wish for though.
I was trying to help a woman last week: in her late 20s, single, 3 children, eldest two both have issues, eldest receives DLA, she's been told to apply for DLA for child 2. They're on UC, in (unsatisfactory) social housing, she hasn't worked for 9 years, has lots of debt she can never pay...
On the bright side, she's having another baby, due next month. So that should help the demographics.
Maybe that's the caste system we need. An earning class and a child-rearing class.
I do wish people would stop jumping on @Anabobazina. They have views and should be able to air them. Also, as it happens they were literally responding to a thread header by somebody else!
Funny how people try to moderate only those they don’t agree with
Fair points, well made. Thanks.
(P.S. I am a he not a they!)
Do we all need to start posting our pronouns in our usernames?
Surprised so little comment here on the escalating tension with Russia.
Mass drone activity over UK (USAF) nuclear bases still ongoing in East Anglia last night I see. Is that 8 consecutive nights now? Apaches and Ospreys have been in the air, several dozen special forces deployed on the ground. And reportedly the activity has also spread to Brize Norton. USAF spokespeople are being grilled daily about this, UK MOD is saying very little.
Meanwhile the Yi Peng 3 is still moored off the coast of Sweden while they figure out negotiations with China to board it and presumably arrest the Russian crew for sabotage.
Last night Kalingrad was completely encircled by US jets.
Bob Woodward reports that in autumn 2022, the cia’s risk assessment of imminent nuclear exchange was 50% (based upon “exquisite” intelligence), before receding after the Russian army escaped to the left bank of the river in Kherson. One wonders what their risk assessment is right now.
The risk has reduced, IMV. Putin has self fallacious red line after red line, and when those lines have been crossed, has done very little in response. He has had a couple of years to consider that defeat is possible, if not probable, and the adults in the room will have made it very clear to him what the consequences of the use of nukes will be - both for himself and Russia.
The biggest risk of his using nukes was in late 2022, when his gambit started failing.
I conclude exactly the opposite and think you are being pretty complacent. Some major red lines have now been crossed that we would all have considered unthinkable just a few short years ago. Russian sovereign territory has been invaded using a plethora of western tanks and armoured vehicles. And medium range missiles are targeting Russia, that so I gather require active western support to operate.
It would be reasonable to conclude that Russia’s deterrence to external attack has failed. And it’s not far fetched to think there are voices in Moscow right now making the case that the only way to restore deterrence is via a demonstrative nuclear detonation. After the IMBM launch didn’t do the job.
Yes, there will be such voices. And there will be many more voices saying: "For God's sake, no!"
There is no logic in Russia using a tactical or strategic nuke. It gives no battlefield advantage, will lose them friends abroad, and damn them in the history that Putin holds so dear. Using nukes is all lose for Russia, no win.
Because of this, my view is that usage was more likely if Putin suffered a large shock, as he did back in mid-2022. He and his team have had a couple of years to get used to the idea of defeat, and for the adults to tell them what use of a nuke would mean.
I just drafted a reply that I have deleted before posting, on the slim chance it gives the other side ideas they may not have had. But if you think about this properly and calmly and try and put yourself in the logic tree of Putin himself, the risk is higher than you have convinced yourself.
I am not 'convinced'; and I'm amused by your assumption that I am not thinking about this calmly or 'properly' (whatever the heck that means...)
I'd like to see your view on Putin's 'logic tree'; I doubt you'll give him ideas.
I do have a question, what should net migration actually be?
And if it fell to that level, assuming it stayed there would people actually be happy or will it always be too high?
The same it was in the early/mid 1990s.
In the early/mid 1990s the elderly (65+) were 16% of the population. Now they are 20%, by the middle of the century they will be 25%, and by the end of the century 31%. Either more old people work, or we have much more automation, or we accept that our labour market will keep on demanding more workers from abroad.
Or younger British people have more babies
To do that they need houses rather than living with their parents til their thirties. To get the houses we need builders....
And even if we start now its not going to produce any new workers for at least 18.75 years.......
They can rent a flat or even a room even if they can't yet afford to buy.
🚨 BREAKING: Net migration fell by 20% to 728,000 from 906,000 in the year from June 2023 to June 2024
So just two Coventries instead of three. Well that's all right then: I was worried for a bit. We should be able to build 728,000 houses in a year, easy. Whew, that's a relief and no mistake.
(opens window and screams)
If we up it a good bit, we can make it two Edinburghs - much more appealing than two Coventrys!
I do have a question, what should net migration actually be?
And if it fell to that level, assuming it stayed there would people actually be happy or will it always be too high?
The same it was in the early/mid 1990s.
In the early/mid 1990s the elderly (65+) were 16% of the population. Now they are 20%, by the middle of the century they will be 25%, and by the end of the century 31%. Either more old people work, or we have much more automation, or we accept that our labour market will keep on demanding more workers from abroad.
Or younger British people have more babies
To do that they need houses rather than living with their parents til their thirties. To get the houses we need builders....
And even if we start now its not going to produce any new workers for at least 18.75 years.......
They can rent a flat or even a room even if they can't yet afford to buy.
100 years most parents rented their entire lives
Yeah, I can see some problems with telling youngsters to start bringing up big families in a rented room. Is this really what the party of Maggie has been reduced to? How!!!!
I suspect it will pass too but be close. As the chart shows while most Tory MPs will vote against assisted dying (as will Farage and the DUP) and while most LD and Green MPs will vote for (as will the SDLP and PC) Labour MPs are pretty split.
While a plurality of Labour MPs are in favour a significant number are against and they combined with undecided Labour MPs are more than those in support
The irony is if it passes it is likely to be with the help of Scottish Labour mps voting on a bill that doesn't apply in Scotland
Personally I think it is right to give people a choice but there must be well thought through regulation
I agree generally, especially with the last para, but also think it wrong that Scots MP's of ANY party vote on this. It's a devolved matter, there what goes on in Scotland is left to the Scots.And, what its sauce for the goose etc.
And Good Morning one and all; lovely Autumn morning here; crisp and cold. Could be Winter, as indeed it will be in a couple of days.
Unless of course it’s vetoing gender recognition bills or that most controversial of topics, a bottle return scheme.
For Labour SLab MPs voting on rUK issues is a feature not a bug, they’ll be encouraging it.
"At Westminster it's suspected that the procedural objections are a fig leaf for moral concerns."
What exactly is wrong with moral concerns ?
You shouldn't impose your moral concerns on others who don't share them. Assisted dying will not be obligatory. You can opt out if you have moral concerns! To oppose this bill is grossly illibersl.
You assuming that a choice that a person makes does not have consequences for others or society.
Which is grossly illiberal, as well.
How about abortion?
Abortion is the precedent that worries me.
I'm in favour of women having control of their bodies and being free to choose, and for medical professionals to be able to do what is best for the health of the mother in the case of complications late in pregnancy, without fear of prosecution.
But the legislation passed in the Commons is being applied in a more liberal way than intended. It would have been better if it had been amended. This gives me concern about the safeguards included in the current Bill, and question how they might be eroded over time.
We also see how much pressure there often is on a pregnant woman to have an abortion and that makes me worry. In particular, a person potentially being pressured to go through with an assisted death won't be able to testify to that coercion after the event.
When you say the legislation is being "applied in a more liberal way then intended", perhaps you should specify whose intent? The legislation is working exactly as intended by those behind the 1967 Bill (I know/knew several of them).
The problem today with the 1967 Act is that it is too restrictive, with women being unnecessarily investigated after pregnancy loss: see https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68305991
I do wish people would stop jumping on @Anabobazina. They have views and should be able to air them. Also, as it happens they were literally responding to a thread header by somebody else!
Funny how people try to moderate only those they don’t agree with
Fair points, well made. Thanks.
(P.S. I am a he not a they!)
Do we all need to start posting our pronouns in our usernames?
Would be handy for weeding out bots/AI
Claude (it/its)
I find that whole debate unfair and discriminatory. When will those of us who are antinouns get included?
🚨 BREAKING: Net migration fell by 20% to 728,000 from 906,000 in the year from June 2023 to June 2024
The number of asylum applicants in the period was 84,000 - a relatively small fraction of the whole.
Add in asylum and that’s Britain’s 4th biggest city - in population terms - arriving in ONE YEAR
The asylum numbers are already included.
Yebbut... add in the non-migration numbers again and you have Britain's 45th largest town - arriving in ONE DAY
I know Big G and I are trying to avoid this, but how many people die every year?
Key point really, isn't it? Along with births. Net population change is a more important measure for e.g. services, houses etc. We should be thinking about what we want to do with out population size and age profile and then introducing the policies to get there - which might include significant increases in support for people to have children, rather than focusing on immigration, but a debate we should have.
I do wish people would stop jumping on @Anabobazina. They have views and should be able to air them. Also, as it happens they were literally responding to a thread header by somebody else!
Funny how people try to moderate only those they don’t agree with
Fair points, well made. Thanks.
(P.S. I am a he not a they!)
Do we all need to start posting our pronouns in our usernames?
Would be handy for weeding out bots/AI
Claude (it/its)
I find that whole debate unfair and discriminatory. When will those of us who are antinouns get included?
Would anybody be surprised if the UK actually had another 2, 3, maybe 5 million people living here than officially believed?
I spoke to an association of local authorities once and they were adamant that that was the case. Some analyses of sewer usage and food buying indicate that this may be the case, but other explanations (disposal of food past sell-by date) are available. I don't know how you would resolve this
For various reasons I've recently been all over bits of West London beyond my usual haunts. It is mind blowing to see just how many properties that would have once had a single family in them 20-30 years ago, just a normal semi or terraced house, that are now clearly split into flats. You can tell this from things like entrances, bins, satellite dishes, the number of cars parked on what used to be the front garden. Then there's all the repurposed commercial property that has been turned into flats. There is so much of that, almost all of it looks terrible.
Looking at some of these properties I'm not convinced that all this stuff is on the up and up, and anecdotally dodgy HMOs seem to be very common and a persitent issue for local government. You really do have to wonder how many people actually live in London today?
I do have a question, what should net migration actually be?
And if it fell to that level, assuming it stayed there would people actually be happy or will it always be too high?
The same it was in the early/mid 1990s.
In the early/mid 1990s the elderly (65+) were 16% of the population. Now they are 20%, by the middle of the century they will be 25%, and by the end of the century 31%. Either more old people work, or we have much more automation, or we accept that our labour market will keep on demanding more workers from abroad.
Or younger British people have more babies
Be careful what you wish for though.
I was trying to help a woman last week: in her late 20s, single, 3 children, eldest two both have issues, eldest receives DLA, she's been told to apply for DLA for child 2. They're on UC, in (unsatisfactory) social housing, she hasn't worked for 9 years, has lots of debt she can never pay...
On the bright side, she's having another baby, due next month. So that should help the demographics.
More younger people getting married and then having children especially.
Though even that woman is at least more invested in the future and had children, even if she does not have a high flying career.
The reality is uber feminism spreads the lie most women can have high flying professional and managerial careers and can put that even above motherhood. The reality is most can't but most women can be mothers and have children.
VP elect Vance could have been more diplomatic about childless cat ladies but his point more women need to have more children was correct
I can hear you saying that in your best 1950s Public Information voice.
🚨 BREAKING: Net migration fell by 20% to 728,000 from 906,000 in the year from June 2023 to June 2024
The number of asylum applicants in the period was 84,000 - a relatively small fraction of the whole.
Add in asylum and that’s Britain’s 4th biggest city - in population terms - arriving in ONE YEAR
The asylum numbers are already included.
Yebbut... add in the non-migration numbers again and you have Britain's 45th largest town - arriving in ONE DAY
I know Big G and I are trying to avoid this, but how many people die every year?
That is so kind but following a series of recent reviews and scans my haematologist, cardiologist and vascular surgeon have all signed me off [ with occasional blood tests] for a year and whilst I am not as mobile as I was, I am grateful for so much and look forward to a few years ahead
My GP agrees that I'm OK from the neck up, although I need annual reviews, including, like you, blood tests. However I do note that my spelling has deteriorated a little lately. I've booked a speaking engagement for late February, though and I'm beginning to wonder about travelling somewhere in the summer!
Surprised so little comment here on the escalating tension with Russia.
Mass drone activity over UK (USAF) nuclear bases still ongoing in East Anglia last night I see. Is that 8 consecutive nights now? Apaches and Ospreys have been in the air, several dozen special forces deployed on the ground. And reportedly the activity has also spread to Brize Norton. USAF spokespeople are being grilled daily about this, UK MOD is saying very little.
Meanwhile the Yi Peng 3 is still moored off the coast of Sweden while they figure out negotiations with China to board it and presumably arrest the Russian crew for sabotage.
Last night Kalingrad was completely encircled by US jets.
Bob Woodward reports that in autumn 2022, the cia’s risk assessment of imminent nuclear exchange was 50% (based upon “exquisite” intelligence), before receding after the Russian army escaped to the left bank of the river in Kherson. One wonders what their risk assessment is right now.
The risk has reduced, IMV. Putin has self fallacious red line after red line, and when those lines have been crossed, has done very little in response. He has had a couple of years to consider that defeat is possible, if not probable, and the adults in the room will have made it very clear to him what the consequences of the use of nukes will be - both for himself and Russia.
The biggest risk of his using nukes was in late 2022, when his gambit started failing.
I conclude exactly the opposite and think you are being pretty complacent. Some major red lines have now been crossed that we would all have considered unthinkable just a few short years ago. Russian sovereign territory has been invaded using a plethora of western tanks and armoured vehicles. And medium range missiles are targeting Russia, that so I gather require active western support to operate.
It would be reasonable to conclude that Russia’s deterrence to external attack has failed. And it’s not far fetched to think there are voices in Moscow right now making the case that the only way to restore deterrence is via a demonstrative nuclear detonation. After the IMBM launch didn’t do the job.
Yes, there will be such voices. And there will be many more voices saying: "For God's sake, no!"
There is no logic in Russia using a tactical or strategic nuke. It gives no battlefield advantage, will lose them friends abroad, and damn them in the history that Putin holds so dear. Using nukes is all lose for Russia, no win.
Because of this, my view is that usage was more likely if Putin suffered a large shock, as he did back in mid-2022. He and his team have had a couple of years to get used to the idea of defeat, and for the adults to tell them what use of a nuke would mean.
I just drafted a reply that I have deleted before posting, on the slim chance it gives the other side ideas they may not have had. But if you think about this properly and calmly and try and put yourself in the logic tree of Putin himself, the risk is higher than you have convinced yourself.
I am not 'convinced'; and I'm amused by your assumption that I am not thinking about this calmly or 'properly' (whatever the heck that means...)
I'd like to see your view on Putin's 'logic tree'; I doubt you'll give him ideas.
Well you’re saying things like “self fallacious red lines”, in the context of western battle tanks and missiles thundering through the Russian countryside. So yes, I think you're looking at this with emotion rather than calmly, and considering how far the Overton window has shifted in 2-3 years.
Deterrence is “cheaper” the earlier you do it, as we have learnt to our painful cost. The problem is that Putin has also left it very late, and he’s struggling to restore the integrity of Russian sovereign territory through conventional means. It therefore follows he might be persuaded he needs to make an “expensive” intervention to restore credible deterrence.
You aren’t pricing in the risk of a nuclear intervention because like most, I imagine you view escalation to MAD as an almost immutable law. And perhaps this is the correct conclusion. But there’s a non negligible chance that Putin will be persuaded otherwise. That was the view of the CIA this time two years ago and I’m not clear why we should brush aside recent major escalations as being somehow different.
I do wish people would stop jumping on @Anabobazina. They have views and should be able to air them. Also, as it happens they were literally responding to a thread header by somebody else!
Funny how people try to moderate only those they don’t agree with
Fair points, well made. Thanks.
(P.S. I am a he not a they!)
Do we all need to start posting our pronouns in our usernames?
Would be handy for weeding out bots/AI
Claude (it/its)
I find that whole debate unfair and discriminatory. When will those of us who are antinouns get included?
I do have a question, what should net migration actually be?
Net migration should be X=A+B+C-(D+E), where
A = the number of empty houses, and B = the number of houses that can be built in a year C = some kind of fudge factor (time delay, migrants are more likely to have babies, etc) D = the number of houses required by those already here E = another fudge factor (those you didn't build last year, etc)
Otherwise you are just asking for trouble.
Its more complicated than that for several reasons.
Firstly, you seem to be assuming that there is sufficient housing for the existing population and that their demands for housing are static. Neither are true.
Secondly, such a simplistic approach might result in us turning people we actually need simply because they apply later than some we don't.
Thirdly, the movement of people is very dynamic with hundreds of thousands arriving and departing each month. So far monitoring that with any degree of accuracy has proven beyond us.
It may be some sort of guide but it is no more than that. I certainly agree that those who want more immigration should be required to say where and when the additional accommodation will be provided.
Are we allowed to directly inform the builders and councils too?
I am I think probably similar to a lot of others in that in principle I am fully supportive of there being a right, but that the safeguards must be balanced, enforced and appropriate. The actual balance is a very tricky one to strike, hence why I think the debate is so controversial and why it is difficult to legislate.
If MPs do back the bill in principle, I would be hugely in favour of something akin to a royal commission (what happened to those?) taking evidence from medical professionals, hospices, charities, campaigners and yes lawyers and judges to try and form a consensus way forwards on the principles and structure (those principles having been endorsed by MPs) and work with government to get a statute before parliament. That to me seems like the greatest chance of getting a “good” law out of this.
I do wish people would stop jumping on @Anabobazina. They have views and should be able to air them. Also, as it happens they were literally responding to a thread header by somebody else!
Funny how people try to moderate only those they don’t agree with
Fair points, well made. Thanks.
(P.S. I am a he not a they!)
Do we all need to start posting our pronouns in our usernames?
Would be handy for weeding out bots/AI
Claude (it/its)
The bit that really gets me about pronoun posting is the insistence on giving the genitive and/or accusative cases alongside the nominative case. They're redundant. You only need the nominative case: he, she or it. The other cases are unambiguously derived from it.
🚨 BREAKING: Net migration fell by 20% to 728,000 from 906,000 in the year from June 2023 to June 2024
So just two Coventries instead of three. Well that's all right then: I was worried for a bit. We should be able to build 728,000 houses in a year, easy. Whew, that's a relief and no mistake.
(opens window and screams)
"In 2021-22, there were 809,000 second homes owned by households in England"
Would anybody be surprised if the UK actually had another 2, 3, maybe 5 million people living here than officially believed?
I spoke to an association of local authorities once and they were adamant that that was the case. Some analyses of sewer usage and food buying indicate that this may be the case, but other explanations (disposal of food past sell-by date) are available. I don't know how you would resolve this
For various reasons I've recently been all over bits of West London beyond my usual haunts. It is mind blowing to see just how many properties that would have once had a single family in them 20-30 years ago, just a normal semi or terraced house, that are now clearly split into flats. You can tell this from things like entrances, bins, satellite dishes, the number of cars parked on what used to be the front garden. Then there's all the repurposed commercial property that has been turned into flats. There is so much of that, almost all of it looks terrible.
Looking at some of these properties I'm not convinced that all this stuff is on the up and up, and anecdotally dodgy HMOs seem to be very common and a persitent issue for local government. You really do have to wonder how many people actually live in London today?
Conversion of houses into flats mainly took place in the 80s and 90s. When I first came to London in 1998 the vast majority of housing stock had already been converted. There is some reconversion back to houses in some places but councils are wary of this for the obvious reason that it reduces housing stock.
The overall state of repair and presentability of conversions has, I would say, improved markedly since the 90s as areas have gentrified and also as flat owners have bought out shares of freehold.
🚨 BREAKING: Net migration fell by 20% to 728,000 from 906,000 in the year from June 2023 to June 2024
The number of asylum applicants in the period was 84,000 - a relatively small fraction of the whole.
Add in asylum and that’s Britain’s 4th biggest city - in population terms - arriving in ONE YEAR
The asylum numbers are already included.
Yebbut... add in the non-migration numbers again and you have Britain's 45th largest town - arriving in ONE DAY
I know Big G and I are trying to avoid this, but how many people die every year?
Key point really, isn't it? Along with births. Net population change is a more important measure for e.g. services, houses etc. We should be thinking about what we want to do with out population size and age profile and then introducing the policies to get there - which might include significant increases in support for people to have children, rather than focusing on immigration, but a debate we should have.
In general there are more births than deaths in UK. But this has recently headed towards crossing over. In 2023 there were 581,363 deaths in E and W (Scotland reports separately) and 591,072 births. IIRC Scottish births were falling faster than the rest (though my new Scottish granddaughter at least puts their figures up by one for 2024).
SFAICS no nation has managed yet to recover birthrates by policies. UK policy as a whole can be reasonably understood as a conspiracy to avoid anyone ever having a baby again, and social media and other policies appear designed to make sure they never have time to have sex in the first place.
I do have a question, what should net migration actually be?
And if it fell to that level, assuming it stayed there would people actually be happy or will it always be too high?
The same it was in the early/mid 1990s.
In the early/mid 1990s the elderly (65+) were 16% of the population. Now they are 20%, by the middle of the century they will be 25%, and by the end of the century 31%. Either more old people work, or we have much more automation, or we accept that our labour market will keep on demanding more workers from abroad.
Or younger British people have more babies
To do that they need houses rather than living with their parents til their thirties. To get the houses we need builders....
And even if we start now its not going to produce any new workers for at least 18.75 years.......
They can rent a flat or even a room even if they can't yet afford to buy.
100 years most parents rented their entire lives
Yeah, I can see some problems with telling youngsters to start bringing up big families in a rented room. Is this really what the party of Maggie has been reduced to? How!!!!
Maggie of course savagely reduced the number of homes available to rent.
I do have a question, what should net migration actually be?
And if it fell to that level, assuming it stayed there would people actually be happy or will it always be too high?
The same it was in the early/mid 1990s.
In the early/mid 1990s the elderly (65+) were 16% of the population. Now they are 20%, by the middle of the century they will be 25%, and by the end of the century 31%. Either more old people work, or we have much more automation, or we accept that our labour market will keep on demanding more workers from abroad.
Or younger British people have more babies
Be careful what you wish for though.
I was trying to help a woman last week: in her late 20s, single, 3 children, eldest two both have issues, eldest receives DLA, she's been told to apply for DLA for child 2. They're on UC, in (unsatisfactory) social housing, she hasn't worked for 9 years, has lots of debt she can never pay...
On the bright side, she's having another baby, due next month. So that should help the demographics.
More younger people getting married and then having children especially.
Though even that woman is at least more invested in the future and had children, even if she does not have a high flying career.
The reality is uber feminism spreads the lie most women can have high flying professional and managerial careers and can put that even above motherhood. The reality is most can't but most women can be mothers and have children.
VP elect Vance could have been more diplomatic about childless cat ladies but his point more women need to have more children was correct
🚨 BREAKING: Net migration fell by 20% to 728,000 from 906,000 in the year from June 2023 to June 2024
So just two Coventries instead of three. Well that's all right then: I was worried for a bit. We should be able to build 728,000 houses in a year, easy. Whew, that's a relief and no mistake.
(opens window and screams)
"In 2021-22, there were 809,000 second homes owned by households in England"
Second homes are a red herring. We have way fewer of them than most other European countries, and way fewer vacant properties. What we lack is housing redundancy: more houses than we need. That's what France, Spain and Italy have. It means housing is affordable and it also frees up property for tourism.
Surprised so little comment here on the escalating tension with Russia.
Mass drone activity over UK (USAF) nuclear bases still ongoing in East Anglia last night I see. Is that 8 consecutive nights now? Apaches and Ospreys have been in the air, several dozen special forces deployed on the ground. And reportedly the activity has also spread to Brize Norton. USAF spokespeople are being grilled daily about this, UK MOD is saying very little.
Meanwhile the Yi Peng 3 is still moored off the coast of Sweden while they figure out negotiations with China to board it and presumably arrest the Russian crew for sabotage.
Last night Kalingrad was completely encircled by US jets.
Bob Woodward reports that in autumn 2022, the cia’s risk assessment of imminent nuclear exchange was 50% (based upon “exquisite” intelligence), before receding after the Russian army escaped to the left bank of the river in Kherson. One wonders what their risk assessment is right now.
The risk has reduced, IMV. Putin has self fallacious red line after red line, and when those lines have been crossed, has done very little in response. He has had a couple of years to consider that defeat is possible, if not probable, and the adults in the room will have made it very clear to him what the consequences of the use of nukes will be - both for himself and Russia.
The biggest risk of his using nukes was in late 2022, when his gambit started failing.
I conclude exactly the opposite and think you are being pretty complacent. Some major red lines have now been crossed that we would all have considered unthinkable just a few short years ago. Russian sovereign territory has been invaded using a plethora of western tanks and armoured vehicles. And medium range missiles are targeting Russia, that so I gather require active western support to operate.
It would be reasonable to conclude that Russia’s deterrence to external attack has failed. And it’s not far fetched to think there are voices in Moscow right now making the case that the only way to restore deterrence is via a demonstrative nuclear detonation. After the IMBM launch didn’t do the job.
Yes, there will be such voices. And there will be many more voices saying: "For God's sake, no!"
There is no logic in Russia using a tactical or strategic nuke. It gives no battlefield advantage, will lose them friends abroad, and damn them in the history that Putin holds so dear. Using nukes is all lose for Russia, no win.
Because of this, my view is that usage was more likely if Putin suffered a large shock, as he did back in mid-2022. He and his team have had a couple of years to get used to the idea of defeat, and for the adults to tell them what use of a nuke would mean.
I just drafted a reply that I have deleted before posting, on the slim chance it gives the other side ideas they may not have had. But if you think about this properly and calmly and try and put yourself in the logic tree of Putin himself, the risk is higher than you have convinced yourself.
I am not 'convinced'; and I'm amused by your assumption that I am not thinking about this calmly or 'properly' (whatever the heck that means...)
I'd like to see your view on Putin's 'logic tree'; I doubt you'll give him ideas.
Well you’re saying things like “self fallacious red lines”, in the context of western battle tanks and missiles thundering through the Russian countryside. So yes, I think you're looking at this with emotion rather than calmly, and considering how far the Overton window has shifted in 2-3 years.
Deterrence is “cheaper” the earlier you do it, as we have learnt to our painful cost. The problem is that Putin has also left it very late, and he’s struggling to restore the integrity of Russian sovereign territory through conventional means. It therefore follows he might be persuaded he needs to make an “expensive” intervention to restore credible deterrence.
You aren’t pricing in the risk of a nuclear intervention because like most, I imagine you view escalation to MAD as an almost immutable law. And perhaps this is the correct conclusion. But there’s a non negligible chance that Putin will be persuaded otherwise. That was the view of the CIA this time two years ago and I’m not clear why we should brush aside recent major escalations as being somehow different.
I am 'pricing in the risk of a nuclear intervention'.
Let me ask you a question: what will Putin gain militarily if he uses a nuke?
Comments
Brace, Brace.
But I suspect many will see todays headlines and interpret them as meaning that 700k asylum seekers turned up in small boats this year.
The biggest risk of his using nukes was in late 2022, when his gambit started failing.
"Other opponents of this bill worry about coercion; about people who don’t want to die being bullied into it. That too is an easy fox to shoot. Very few people secretly want to murder their spouses or parents,"
Well yes, but those that do will be a problem and you can bet your bottom dollar that at least one will happen in the first year and make the news. You have to take edge cases and abuse into account, you can't just wave your hand at legislation and say "she'll be apples".
10% or so want zero or close to it.
15% the <100k repeatedly promised to them and not delivered by the Tories
5% not about the number but all about the processing and illegals
25% primary concern about matching infrastructure with migration
15% primary concern queue jumping for public services especially for illegal migration
30% happy with status quo
Whilst Labour will get migration down significantly I'm not sure which of the above groups they can placate on the issue. They are not building enough.
* Unless you only give them temporary residency rights and deport them at pension age with zero pension accrual.
One doctor from India. Now here with his wife and two children.
One post-grad student from India. Then got a job. Now got citizenship.
I wonder in 2016 if you asked Leavers if they had to choose what they’d prefer I doubt they’d have wanted the vast amount of migrants to be coming from Nigeria, Pakistan and India .
And if you had told them out of the EU net migration would almost triple would Brexit have happened .
Asylum is tiny by comparison, and putting asylum seekers in quote marks isn't a classy thing for a classy man to do.
(And a bet 'on' vs a bet 'against'...)
Net migration for 2022-3 updated to 906k! And 728k for 2023-4.
We are a country lost.
No wonder people are voting for legalised suicide!
Boris did end EU free movement but just expanded immigration from the non EU
This is why asylum seekers are so contentious even though they are a small proportion of the total number.
It would be reasonable to conclude that Russia’s deterrence to external attack has failed. And it’s not far fetched to think there are voices in Moscow right now making the case that the only way to restore deterrence is via a demonstrative
nuclear detonation. After the IMBM launch didn’t do the job.
An anti-wheelchair chicane partly blocking an underpass through a railway embankment at Lansdowne Road, Urmston, at the location ... verifying.fencing.skills .
https://what3words.com/verifying.fencing.skills
(Like all good pantomime, once you drop the Google man ... IT'S BEHIND YOU.)
Polievre's Conservatives have promised to cut back assisted dying if they beat Trudeau's Liberal governing party at the Canadian election next year
Funny how people try to moderate only those they don’t agree with
Net migration should be X=A+B+C-(D+E), where
A = the number of empty houses, and
B = the number of houses that can be built in a year
C = some kind of fudge factor (time delay, migrants are more likely to have babies, etc)
D = the number of houses required by those already here
E = another fudge factor (those you didn't build last year, etc)
Otherwise you are just asking for trouble.
And even if we start now its not going to produce any new workers for at least 18.75 years.......
But it wouldn't have been a choice if the UK was still in the EU.
As we would have received the immigrants we did plus more from Europe.
That said the history of immigration control shows that any loophole in the rules will be used, hence the 'dependents' of 'students'.
We actually have very little serious crime. But, again, tons of laws.
Law is all about the edge cases. For a reason.
There is no logic in Russia using a tactical or strategic nuke. It gives no battlefield advantage, will lose them friends abroad, and damn them in the history that Putin holds so dear. Using nukes is all lose for Russia, no win.
Because of this, my view is that usage was more likely if Putin suffered a large shock, as he did back in mid-2022. He and his team have had a couple of years to get used to the idea of defeat, and for the adults to tell them what use of a nuke would mean.
(P.S. I am a he not a they!)
Also this revision makes me think we do not even have an accurate idea of population and migration in the UK. It's rather like the EU settlement scheme estimates which were off by absolutely miles.
Would anybody be surprised if the UK actually had another 2, 3, maybe 5 million people living here than officially believed?
I was trying to help a woman last week: in her late 20s, single, 3 children, eldest two both have issues, eldest receives DLA, she's been told to apply for DLA for child 2. They're on UC, in (unsatisfactory) social housing, she hasn't worked for 9 years, has lots of debt she can never pay...
On the bright side, she's having another baby, due next month. So that should help the demographics.
Many people in “regular migration” have reason for coming here that aren’t just economic.
Many “asylum seekers” have partially economic motivations for coming here.
Consider an Indian chap, I used to work with. Came here on a work visa. A part of the reason for leaving India is that he is a Christian and the RSS types burn down his local church on occasion.
As a patient, I am interested in my nurse's competence, not his/her race or nationality. Fluency in English may be a factor, as that can affect understanding.
I need to know they work with and to UK values and standards. My medical conditions are managed by ME, with support from my clinical team - not the other way round.
To riff off the header, if there existed a system where the medical staff get to decide whether the patients lives or dies by active intervention - which is not proposed here - I require a clinician from such a culture coming here to work by UK standards, not their own, and to be competent to do so.
I have occasionally noticed minor attitudinal differences from clinicians from different national backgrounds, but nothing to concern me.
If ever I decide to take the assisted dying route, my daughters would try their damnest to coerce their father out of it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacup
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacup_Cricket_Club
You'd need a new cricket club, every week.
(opens window and screams)
PS We're all with you OKC - trying to delay for many years.
Even more so when the students turned out to be 'students' with multiple dependents.
This may have been a case of politicians thinking back to their own personal experiences.
Lots of politicians have been to university, very few of them would have brought any dependents with them.
It's like providing free cakes and being surprised when people eat them.
Leavers just simply refuse to accept facts or reality . So we get this constant denial .
In the EU we had almost two thirds less net migration . That’s a fact !
And Leave wouldn’t have won the referendum if the slogan was vote Leave to increase immigration !
Though even that woman is at least more invested in the future and had children, even if she does not have a high flying career.
The reality is uber feminism spreads the lie most women can have high flying professional and managerial careers and can put that even above motherhood. The reality is most can't but most women can be mothers and have children.
VP elect Vance could have been more diplomatic about childless cat ladies but his point more women need to have more children was correct
Either side risks a lovely wheel-in-dog-poo encounter.
Firstly, you seem to be assuming that there is sufficient housing for the existing population and that their demands for housing are static. Neither are true.
Secondly, such a simplistic approach might result in us turning people we actually need simply because they apply later than some we don't.
Thirdly, the movement of people is very dynamic with hundreds of thousands arriving and departing each month. So far monitoring that with any degree of accuracy has proven beyond us.
It may be some sort of guide but it is no more than that. I certainly agree that those who want more immigration should be required to say where and when the additional accommodation will be provided.
/s obviously
Would be handy for weeding out bots/AI
Claude (it/its)
I'd like to see your view on Putin's 'logic tree'; I doubt you'll give him ideas.
100 years most parents rented their entire lives
For Labour SLab MPs voting on rUK issues is a feature not a bug, they’ll be encouraging it.
The problem today with the 1967 Act is that it is too restrictive, with women being unnecessarily investigated after pregnancy loss: see https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68305991
Looking at some of these properties I'm not convinced that all this stuff is on the up and up, and anecdotally dodgy HMOs seem to be very common and a persitent issue for local government. You really do have to wonder how many people actually live in London today?
However I do note that my spelling has deteriorated a little lately.
I've booked a speaking engagement for late February, though and I'm beginning to wonder about travelling somewhere in the summer!
Deterrence is “cheaper” the earlier you do it, as we have learnt to our painful cost. The problem is that Putin has also left it very late, and he’s struggling to restore the integrity of Russian sovereign territory through conventional means. It therefore follows he might be persuaded he needs to make an “expensive” intervention to restore credible deterrence.
You aren’t pricing in the risk of a nuclear intervention because like most, I imagine you view escalation to MAD as an almost immutable law. And perhaps this is the correct conclusion. But there’s a non negligible chance that Putin will be persuaded otherwise. That was the view of the CIA this time two years ago and I’m not clear why we should brush aside recent major escalations as being somehow different.
I am I think probably similar to a lot of others in that in principle I am fully supportive of there being a right, but that the safeguards must be balanced, enforced and appropriate. The actual balance is a very tricky one to strike, hence why I think the debate is so controversial and why it is difficult to legislate.
If MPs do back the bill in principle, I would be hugely in favour of something akin to a royal commission (what happened to those?) taking evidence from medical professionals, hospices, charities, campaigners and yes lawyers and judges to try and form a consensus way forwards on the principles and structure (those principles having been endorsed by MPs) and work with government to get a statute before parliament. That to me seems like the greatest chance of getting a “good” law out of this.
Best, FeersumEnjineeya (it)
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-housing-survey-2021-to-2022-second-homes-fact-sheet/english-housing-survey-2021-to-2022-second-homes-fact-sheet
The overall state of repair and presentability of conversions has, I would say, improved markedly since the 90s as areas have gentrified and also as flat owners have bought out shares of freehold.
SFAICS no nation has managed yet to recover birthrates by policies. UK policy as a whole can be reasonably understood as a conspiracy to avoid anyone ever having a baby again, and social media and other policies appear designed to make sure they never have time to have sex in the first place.
Let me ask you a question: what will Putin gain militarily if he uses a nuke?
Low productivity and weak growth pose challenge to Starmer’s economic ambitions"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/11/28/pay-below-2008-levels-britain-lags-behind-rich-world/