If a paradigm has shifted, it’s the fall of the free trade pro business conservative centre right replaced by the nationalist, protectionist “fuck business” populist right.
Yes, I think that's correct
Britain has enjoyed or endured spectacular levels of immigration in the last 10-20 years. We are constantly assured this contributes to growth. Yet, as @Sandpit shows, the reality is that GDP per capita has not grown at all even as our population has exploded by many millions, putting pressure on everything - from sewage systems to landscapes, from education to health. Meanwhile our cities crumble and we have very real and unpleasant social problems stemming from the migration
Now we are told "another 5 million must come in the next ten years". Why? What the fuck? We don't want any more. Polls show that voters - by almost 2 to 1 - would rather have LESS immigration EVEN IF IT COMES AT THE EXPENSE OF GROWTH
No one buys the "growth" shit any more, and even if they do, they are past caring
I predict that the party which most convincingly argues that it will curtail immigration in 2028 will do very well, and will likely win. Labour cannot do that, the Tories can't, not any more, so we are left with Reform
Was talking with a builder yesterday working alone. They can’t hire labourers or apprentices. The work is too hard apparently. Not the first time I heard that story.
Someone has to do the hard work.
Yes, robots. And I'm quite serious
If only there was a really famous British company that sold capital equipment for builders, that lets one man dig a hole in one day that would take three men a week to do by hand.
If a paradigm has shifted, it’s the fall of the free trade pro business conservative centre right replaced by the nationalist, protectionist “fuck business” populist right.
Yes, I think that's correct
Britain has enjoyed or endured spectacular levels of immigration in the last 10-20 years. We are constantly assured this contributes to growth. Yet, as @Sandpit shows, the reality is that GDP per capita has not grown at all even as our population has exploded by many millions, putting pressure on everything - from sewage systems to landscapes, from education to health. Meanwhile our cities crumble and we have very real and unpleasant social problems stemming from the migration
Now we are told "another 5 million must come in the next ten years". Why? What the fuck? We don't want any more. Polls show that voters - by almost 2 to 1 - would rather have LESS immigration EVEN IF IT COMES AT THE EXPENSE OF GROWTH
No one buys the "growth" shit any more, and even if they do, they are past caring
I think that's true. There are exceptions for very highly motivated or wealthy individuals, but generally per capita growth does not generally come from opening the floodgates to unskilled or semi-skilled immigration - it comes from low taxes, low but efficient government spending and light but effective regulation.
In short the exact opposite of the route we've been following for more than twenty years.
Yes. And the public has finally woken up to this reality. Hence the paradigm shift
Are Labour in a good position in the polls? No. Are they “on course for re-election”? Far too early to say.
Yes what they have going for them is a divided opposition but they are at the mercy of what happens to that opposition. A long road to travel on that front before we start thinking of the next GE. Conversely, there’s still plenty of time for them to start improving.
At this stage it's hard to see past another Labour -led Government. Crudely put, the more likely a Trumpian breakthrough in poor people places looks, the greater the stampede towards Ed Davey in rich people places.
You can't assemble a right-wing majority in the Commons if you've got the large bulk of the city vote, Scotland and half of Southern England running away from you screaming.
That sounds a lot like “I don’t want it to happen, so it won’t happen”, which was the basis of much commentary on the US elections.
Are Labour in a good position in the polls? No. Are they “on course for re-election”? Far too early to say.
Yes what they have going for them is a divided opposition but they are at the mercy of what happens to that opposition. A long road to travel on that front before we start thinking of the next GE. Conversely, there’s still plenty of time for them to start improving.
At this stage it's hard to see past another Labour -led Government. Crudely put, the more likely a Trumpian breakthrough in poor people places looks, the greater the stampede towards Ed Davey in rich people places.
You can't assemble a right-wing majority in the Commons if you've got the large bulk of the city vote, Scotland and half of Southern England running away from you screaming.
An awful lot of southern England wants net zero immigration. As that is where the immigration pressures are highest, and where they will only worsen
People on here don’t seem to understand that the entire paradigm has shifted
There's a generalised sense that immigration is totally out of control, because it is, but it's not about to win the populist right an election because other considerations will come ahead of it. Rich people places don't, by and large, want cultural conservatism, and they don't want a fresh round of isolationism and angry arguments with the EU either. Nor does "coming here, taking all our jobs" type rhetoric wash in regions with low unemployment and skills shortages in key areas: research on immigration shows that opposition quickly softens as soon as you ask if people want more nurses letting in, for example. And whilst it is true that people, generally, loathe development - which is an inevitable consequence of too many other flipping people - NIMBY battles are fought locally. You're not going to vote for a change of Government to get rid of unwanted Barratt Boxes, you're just going to scream in the hope that they get dumped in the way of someone else's countryside view instead.
The next election, whenever it comes, will be decided based on 1. voters' wallets, followed by 2. public services, mainly health. If Labour is making tangible improvements in these areas by 2028, it wins easily. If things are still a complete mess, on the other hand, then what? Is either flavour of the Right going to be able to offer anything other than the same old tired formula of dismantling the state to fund tax giveaways, and blaming immigrants/Europe for stuff that goes wrong? There's precious little sign of it, and that approach won't win anything remotely close to the necessary number of seats.
If the centre right can tie reducing the state in to a reforming narrative, the election is theirs for the taking.
Most people I know voted for Starmer. They're furious already....!
As always, the word "if" does a lot of heavy lifting there. The Opposition has an heroic task on its hands convincing anybody that shrinking the size of the state and cutting taxes accordingly is consistent with voters being able to get a GP appointment when they need it or have their child educated in a school that isn't falling down around them. There are good reasons why the item that caused the most screaming in the budget was the WFA rather than the NI hike, even though the latter was the biggest mistake.
The country is rotting. Repairing and rebuilding it is going to cost a lot of money, and that can't all be magically put right without public sector investment, which means tax. The Right has no good response to this.
I'm not convinced by this argument. The response is that the process state is in fact the problem.
More and more frequently I hear those in the middle class deciding upon funding their own private healthcare, bemoaning the tax on private education etc.
The state's inability doesn't come from shortage of funds, but from a poverty of expectation, and what seems like a boundless desire to stifle innovation and progress with regulation and overcaution.
Innovation is important but will only get you so far. You can't stick a demented bed blocker languishing in a stuffed to the gunwales hospital in a virtual care home bed, you need an actual care home bed with actual staff. A lot of problems can only be solved with investment, pretending otherwise is wishful thinking.
I think we’re in such unprecedented psephological territory that it’s just very hard to make any predictions! FPTP just completely breaks down with so many parties.
I note in Northern Ireland, where the parties compete under FPTP for Westminster elections, but otherwise experience STV, the parties have learnt to stand aside for each other often, or voters learn to vote tactically. In GB, will we see the same?
Predictions are hard, especially when they are about the future.
I think what we are seeing is two parties at bedrock (Labour and Tory) and Reform picking up a large NOTA vote.
Unless things change I suspect we will end up with a low turnout election with a relatively high Reform vote but a very low conversion rate to seats as they fail to break through.
What does that mean for the next government. It’s very simple. In technical terms, fuck knows
Are Labour in a good position in the polls? No. Are they “on course for re-election”? Far too early to say.
Yes what they have going for them is a divided opposition but they are at the mercy of what happens to that opposition. A long road to travel on that front before we start thinking of the next GE. Conversely, there’s still plenty of time for them to start improving.
At this stage it's hard to see past another Labour -led Government. Crudely put, the more likely a Trumpian breakthrough in poor people places looks, the greater the stampede towards Ed Davey in rich people places.
You can't assemble a right-wing majority in the Commons if you've got the large bulk of the city vote, Scotland and half of Southern England running away from you screaming.
An awful lot of southern England wants net zero immigration. As that is where the immigration pressures are highest, and where they will only worsen
People on here don’t seem to understand that the entire paradigm has shifted
There's a generalised sense that immigration is totally out of control, because it is, but it's not about to win the populist right an election because other considerations will come ahead of it. Rich people places don't, by and large, want cultural conservatism, and they don't want a fresh round of isolationism and angry arguments with the EU either. Nor does "coming here, taking all our jobs" type rhetoric wash in regions with low unemployment and skills shortages in key areas: research on immigration shows that opposition quickly softens as soon as you ask if people want more nurses letting in, for example. And whilst it is true that people, generally, loathe development - which is an inevitable consequence of too many other flipping people - NIMBY battles are fought locally. You're not going to vote for a change of Government to get rid of unwanted Barratt Boxes, you're just going to scream in the hope that they get dumped in the way of someone else's countryside view instead.
The next election, whenever it comes, will be decided based on 1. voters' wallets, followed by 2. public services, mainly health. If Labour is making tangible improvements in these areas by 2028, it wins easily. If things are still a complete mess, on the other hand, then what? Is either flavour of the Right going to be able to offer anything other than the same old tired formula of dismantling the state to fund tax giveaways, and blaming immigrants/Europe for stuff that goes wrong? There's precious little sign of it, and that approach won't win anything remotely close to the necessary number of seats.
If the centre right can tie reducing the state in to a reforming narrative, the election is theirs for the taking.
Most people I know voted for Starmer. They're furious already....!
As always, the word "if" does a lot of heavy lifting there. The Opposition has an heroic task on its hands convincing anybody that shrinking the size of the state and cutting taxes accordingly is consistent with voters being able to get a GP appointment when they need it or have their child educated in a school that isn't falling down around them. There are good reasons why the item that caused the most screaming in the budget was the WFA rather than the NI hike, even though the latter was the biggest mistake.
The country is rotting. Repairing and rebuilding it is going to cost a lot of money, and that can't all be magically put right without public sector investment, which means tax. The Right has no good response to this.
I'm not convinced by this argument. The response is that the process state is in fact the problem.
More and more frequently I hear those in the middle class deciding upon funding their own private healthcare, bemoaning the tax on private education etc.
The state's inability doesn't come from shortage of funds, but from a poverty of expectation, and what seems like a boundless desire to stifle innovation and progress with regulation and overcaution.
If a paradigm has shifted, it’s the fall of the free trade pro business conservative centre right replaced by the nationalist, protectionist “fuck business” populist right.
Yes, I think that's correct
Britain has enjoyed or endured spectacular levels of immigration in the last 10-20 years. We are constantly assured this contributes to growth. Yet, as @Sandpit shows, the reality is that GDP per capita has not grown at all even as our population has exploded by many millions, putting pressure on everything - from sewage systems to landscapes, from education to health. Meanwhile our cities crumble and we have very real and unpleasant social problems stemming from the migration
Now we are told "another 5 million must come in the next ten years". Why? What the fuck? We don't want any more. Polls show that voters - by almost 2 to 1 - would rather have LESS immigration EVEN IF IT COMES AT THE EXPENSE OF GROWTH
No one buys the "growth" shit any more, and even if they do, they are past caring
I predict that the party which most convincingly argues that it will curtail immigration in 2028 will do very well, and will likely win. Labour cannot do that, the Tories can't, not any more, so we are left with Reform
Was talking with a builder yesterday working alone. They can’t hire labourers or apprentices. The work is too hard apparently. Not the first time I heard that story.
Someone has to do the hard work.
Yes, robots. And I'm quite serious
If only there was a really famous British company that sold capital equipment for builders, that lets one man dig a hole in one day that would take three men a week to do by hand.
Are Labour in a good position in the polls? No. Are they “on course for re-election”? Far too early to say.
Yes what they have going for them is a divided opposition but they are at the mercy of what happens to that opposition. A long road to travel on that front before we start thinking of the next GE. Conversely, there’s still plenty of time for them to start improving.
At this stage it's hard to see past another Labour -led Government. Crudely put, the more likely a Trumpian breakthrough in poor people places looks, the greater the stampede towards Ed Davey in rich people places.
You can't assemble a right-wing majority in the Commons if you've got the large bulk of the city vote, Scotland and half of Southern England running away from you screaming.
That sounds a lot like “I don’t want it to happen, so it won’t happen”, which was the basis of much commentary on the US elections.
The fact that the Tories lost seats to the Lib Dem’s like Horsham and Chichester, which they have held for 100+ years suggests there is ever so slightly more to it.
If a paradigm has shifted, it’s the fall of the free trade pro business conservative centre right replaced by the nationalist, protectionist “fuck business” populist right.
Yes, I think that's correct
Britain has enjoyed or endured spectacular levels of immigration in the last 10-20 years. We are constantly assured this contributes to growth. Yet, as @Sandpit shows, the reality is that GDP per capita has not grown at all even as our population has exploded by many millions, putting pressure on everything - from sewage systems to landscapes, from education to health. Meanwhile our cities crumble and we have very real and unpleasant social problems stemming from the migration
Now we are told "another 5 million must come in the next ten years". Why? What the fuck? We don't want any more. Polls show that voters - by almost 2 to 1 - would rather have LESS immigration EVEN IF IT COMES AT THE EXPENSE OF GROWTH
No one buys the "growth" shit any more, and even if they do, they are past caring
I think that's true. There are exceptions for very highly motivated or wealthy individuals, but generally per capita growth does not generally come from opening the floodgates to unskilled or semi-skilled immigration - it comes from low taxes, low but efficient government spending and light but effective regulation.
In short the exact opposite of the route we've been following for more than twenty years.
Yes. And the public has finally woken up to this reality. Hence the paradigm shift
If the key to growth is more immigration, growth should have been stellar, over the past 20 years.
The more interesting question for me is: what happened in about November 2024 to send Reform surging? Because their rise has been slow but relentless since
Badenoch became Tory leader.
Well spotted
That must be it? I cannot think of anything else
I think that’s unfair. Complaints that she hasn’t turned around an epoch making defeat in 3 months is unreasonable.
That has happened is that Labour has disappointed, but people are not willing to give the Tories a chance yet. The Lib Dems and Greens have their niche but no wider relevance.
So we have seen a move of soft Labour to WNV and Reform. It’s not particularly Kemi’s fault.
Are Labour in a good position in the polls? No. Are they “on course for re-election”? Far too early to say.
Yes what they have going for them is a divided opposition but they are at the mercy of what happens to that opposition. A long road to travel on that front before we start thinking of the next GE. Conversely, there’s still plenty of time for them to start improving.
At this stage it's hard to see past another Labour -led Government. Crudely put, the more likely a Trumpian breakthrough in poor people places looks, the greater the stampede towards Ed Davey in rich people places.
You can't assemble a right-wing majority in the Commons if you've got the large bulk of the city vote, Scotland and half of Southern England running away from you screaming.
That sounds a lot like “I don’t want it to happen, so it won’t happen”, which was the basis of much commentary on the US elections.
The fact that the Tories lost seats to the Lib Dem’s like Horsham and Chichester, which they have held for 100+ years suggests there is ever so slightly more to it.
The last government shafted everyone who was not a well off pensioner who favoured mass immigration. It’s a surprise they held 121 seats.
Are Labour in a good position in the polls? No. Are they “on course for re-election”? Far too early to say.
Yes what they have going for them is a divided opposition but they are at the mercy of what happens to that opposition. A long road to travel on that front before we start thinking of the next GE. Conversely, there’s still plenty of time for them to start improving.
At this stage it's hard to see past another Labour -led Government. Crudely put, the more likely a Trumpian breakthrough in poor people places looks, the greater the stampede towards Ed Davey in rich people places.
You can't assemble a right-wing majority in the Commons if you've got the large bulk of the city vote, Scotland and half of Southern England running away from you screaming.
That sounds a lot like “I don’t want it to happen, so it won’t happen”, which was the basis of much commentary on the US elections.
The fact that the Tories lost seats to the Lib Dem’s like Horsham and Chichester, which they have held for 100+ years suggests there is ever so slightly more to it.
The last government shafted everyone who was not a well off pensioner who favoured mass immigration. It’s a surprise they held 121 seats.
Are Labour in a good position in the polls? No. Are they “on course for re-election”? Far too early to say.
Yes what they have going for them is a divided opposition but they are at the mercy of what happens to that opposition. A long road to travel on that front before we start thinking of the next GE. Conversely, there’s still plenty of time for them to start improving.
At this stage it's hard to see past another Labour -led Government. Crudely put, the more likely a Trumpian breakthrough in poor people places looks, the greater the stampede towards Ed Davey in rich people places.
You can't assemble a right-wing majority in the Commons if you've got the large bulk of the city vote, Scotland and half of Southern England running away from you screaming.
That sounds a lot like “I don’t want it to happen, so it won’t happen”, which was the basis of much commentary on the US elections.
The fact that the Tories lost seats to the Lib Dem’s like Horsham and Chichester, which they have held for 100+ years suggests there is ever so slightly more to it.
The last government shafted everyone who was not a well off pensioner who favoured mass immigration. It’s a surprise they held 121 seats.
Who did they vote for instead?
Anyone who was best placed to kick the government, or else stayed at home.
If a paradigm has shifted, it’s the fall of the free trade pro business conservative centre right replaced by the nationalist, protectionist “fuck business” populist right.
Yes, I think that's correct
Britain has enjoyed or endured spectacular levels of immigration in the last 10-20 years. We are constantly assured this contributes to growth. Yet, as @Sandpit shows, the reality is that GDP per capita has not grown at all even as our population has exploded by many millions, putting pressure on everything - from sewage systems to landscapes, from education to health. Meanwhile our cities crumble and we have very real and unpleasant social problems stemming from the migration
Now we are told "another 5 million must come in the next ten years". Why? What the fuck? We don't want any more. Polls show that voters - by almost 2 to 1 - would rather have LESS immigration EVEN IF IT COMES AT THE EXPENSE OF GROWTH
No one buys the "growth" shit any more, and even if they do, they are past caring
I think that's true. There are exceptions for very highly motivated or wealthy individuals, but generally per capita growth does not generally come from opening the floodgates to unskilled or semi-skilled immigration - it comes from low taxes, low but efficient government spending and light but effective regulation.
In short the exact opposite of the route we've been following for more than twenty years.
Yes. And the public has finally woken up to this reality. Hence the paradigm shift
Here's a good thought experiment - imagine a scenario where we get a Reform/Tory government next time out and they get serious about immigration, not only do we pause inwards migration from people with income under £50-60k we also pause visa renewals and revoke visas for immigrants who earn under £35k. This results in net emigration of 300-400k per year as low wage workers and their dependents are forced to leave the country. It will result in overall growth falling due to falling aggregate demand from those 400k leaving but per capita GDP will rise as there's 400k fewer low and no wage people in the country.
We may have headlines showing the country in recession or zero growth but people will feel better off because within a few years of such action there will be a couple of million fewer people relying on the state for welfare for their dependents (education for many kids, NHS care for families, in some insane cases housing benefits) while removing net negative tax contributions from them.
In a falling or stagnating economy, we can achieve pretty strong net growth in per capita GDP if the government halts low wage immigration and revokes visa status for low wage migrants already in the country. It is within our power to fix this and send these people home unless they have a significant contribution to the tax base of the country which we know only starts at about £45k.
Are Labour in a good position in the polls? No. Are they “on course for re-election”? Far too early to say.
Yes what they have going for them is a divided opposition but they are at the mercy of what happens to that opposition. A long road to travel on that front before we start thinking of the next GE. Conversely, there’s still plenty of time for them to start improving.
At this stage it's hard to see past another Labour -led Government. Crudely put, the more likely a Trumpian breakthrough in poor people places looks, the greater the stampede towards Ed Davey in rich people places.
You can't assemble a right-wing majority in the Commons if you've got the large bulk of the city vote, Scotland and half of Southern England running away from you screaming.
That sounds a lot like “I don’t want it to happen, so it won’t happen”, which was the basis of much commentary on the US elections.
Not so sure about southern england. They will be hit with taxes the next few years and if you look at a map of mass immigration the SE outside London is becoming increasingly diverse. If you really want to avoid immigration now you have to go the SW or the Lake District.
Are Labour in a good position in the polls? No. Are they “on course for re-election”? Far too early to say.
Yes what they have going for them is a divided opposition but they are at the mercy of what happens to that opposition. A long road to travel on that front before we start thinking of the next GE. Conversely, there’s still plenty of time for them to start improving.
At this stage it's hard to see past another Labour -led Government. Crudely put, the more likely a Trumpian breakthrough in poor people places looks, the greater the stampede towards Ed Davey in rich people places.
You can't assemble a right-wing majority in the Commons if you've got the large bulk of the city vote, Scotland and half of Southern England running away from you screaming.
That sounds a lot like “I don’t want it to happen, so it won’t happen”, which was the basis of much commentary on the US elections.
The fact that the Tories lost seats to the Lib Dem’s like Horsham and Chichester, which they have held for 100+ years suggests there is ever so slightly more to it.
The last government shafted everyone who was not a well off pensioner who favoured mass immigration. It’s a surprise they held 121 seats.
Who did they vote for instead?
Anyone they could
The difference is way back in summer 2024 Reform did not, quite, seem like a serious party and a serious alternative
Now they do, which is why they are leading in some polls. Reform are in a sweet spot where, the higher they poll, the higher they WILL poll, as voters flock to them, suddenly seeing them as a proper potential Opposition (with genuine desires to crush immigration)
What is their ceiling? Farage has around 34% approval, so it is at least that. A few more points and they are in overall majority territory
Of course, it may all go the other way. Farage has a heart attack, one of their MPs shags a hummingbird on live TV, Lee Anderson grows a Hitler tache and starts shouting "Schnell!", much could go wrong, very easily
They are particularly dependent on Farage, and he's now in his 60s. They need to be cultivating a new young generation, as Le Pen has done with Bardella
President Trump’s the Deep State BLOODBATH in the past 24 hours:
- All federal prosecutors handling January 6th cases fired, computers locked and marched out of their offices by security.
- David Sundberg, the FBI Assistant Director at the helm of the January 6th investigations, has been fired.
- 20 leaders of FBI field offices have been escorted out of FBI buildings around the country
- The 51 intelligence officers who spread misinformation about Hunter Biden's laptop and interfered in elections are now banned from entering federal properties.
- Federal employees are now required to return to the office, with non-compliance leading to termination.
- John Bolton and John Brennan have been permanently banned from government buildings.
- Jarold Harold Rogers has been indicted for compromising U.S. trade secrets to China
- Ban on all use of pronouns in government communications
- All 2 million Feds sent a resignation offer
This purge marks the beginning of the end for the corrupt tyrants in Washington.
Are Labour in a good position in the polls? No. Are they “on course for re-election”? Far too early to say.
Yes what they have going for them is a divided opposition but they are at the mercy of what happens to that opposition. A long road to travel on that front before we start thinking of the next GE. Conversely, there’s still plenty of time for them to start improving.
At this stage it's hard to see past another Labour -led Government. Crudely put, the more likely a Trumpian breakthrough in poor people places looks, the greater the stampede towards Ed Davey in rich people places.
You can't assemble a right-wing majority in the Commons if you've got the large bulk of the city vote, Scotland and half of Southern England running away from you screaming.
That sounds a lot like “I don’t want it to happen, so it won’t happen”, which was the basis of much commentary on the US elections.
The fact that the Tories lost seats to the Lib Dem’s like Horsham and Chichester, which they have held for 100+ years suggests there is ever so slightly more to it.
The last government shafted everyone who was not a well off pensioner who favoured mass immigration. It’s a surprise they held 121 seats.
Who did they vote for instead?
Anyone they could
The difference is way back in summer 2024 Reform did not, quite, seem like a serious party and a serious alternative
Now they do, which is why they are leading in some polls. Reform are in a sweet spot where, the higher they poll, the higher they WILL poll, as voters flock to them, suddenly seeing them as a proper potential Opposition (with genuine desires to crush immigration)
What is their ceiling? Farage has around 34% approval, so it is at least that. A few more points and they are in overall majority territory
Of course, it may all go the other way. Farage has a heart attack, one of their MPs shags a hummingbird on live TV, Lee Anderson grows a Hitler tache and starts shouting "Schnell!", much could go wrong, very easily
They are particularly dependent on Farage, and he's now in his 60s. They need to be cultivating a new young generation, as Le Pen has done with Bardella
They voted Lib Dem. It was a one off. They won the council previously. The Lib Dem’s are the centre right conservative choice.
Are Labour in a good position in the polls? No. Are they “on course for re-election”? Far too early to say.
Yes what they have going for them is a divided opposition but they are at the mercy of what happens to that opposition. A long road to travel on that front before we start thinking of the next GE. Conversely, there’s still plenty of time for them to start improving.
At this stage it's hard to see past another Labour -led Government. Crudely put, the more likely a Trumpian breakthrough in poor people places looks, the greater the stampede towards Ed Davey in rich people places.
You can't assemble a right-wing majority in the Commons if you've got the large bulk of the city vote, Scotland and half of Southern England running away from you screaming.
That sounds a lot like “I don’t want it to happen, so it won’t happen”, which was the basis of much commentary on the US elections.
Not so sure about southern england. They will be hit with taxes the next few years and if you look at a map of mass immigration the SE outside London is becoming increasingly diverse. If you really want to avoid immigration now you have to go the SW or the Lake District.
Greetings Tovarisch.
These migrants that don’t go to the SW or the Lake District - who are the people who serve me food when I visit? Aliens from Zarb?
If a paradigm has shifted, it’s the fall of the free trade pro business conservative centre right replaced by the nationalist, protectionist “fuck business” populist right.
Yes, I think that's correct
Britain has enjoyed or endured spectacular levels of immigration in the last 10-20 years. We are constantly assured this contributes to growth. Yet, as @Sandpit shows, the reality is that GDP per capita has not grown at all even as our population has exploded by many millions, putting pressure on everything - from sewage systems to landscapes, from education to health. Meanwhile our cities crumble and we have very real and unpleasant social problems stemming from the migration
Now we are told "another 5 million must come in the next ten years". Why? What the fuck? We don't want any more. Polls show that voters - by almost 2 to 1 - would rather have LESS immigration EVEN IF IT COMES AT THE EXPENSE OF GROWTH
No one buys the "growth" shit any more, and even if they do, they are past caring
I think that's true. There are exceptions for very highly motivated or wealthy individuals, but generally per capita growth does not generally come from opening the floodgates to unskilled or semi-skilled immigration - it comes from low taxes, low but efficient government spending and light but effective regulation.
In short the exact opposite of the route we've been following for more than twenty years.
Yes. And the public has finally woken up to this reality. Hence the paradigm shift
Here's a good thought experiment - imagine a scenario where we get a Reform/Tory government next time out and they get serious about immigration, not only do we pause inwards migration from people with income under £50-60k we also pause visa renewals and revoke visas for immigrants who earn under £35k. This results in net emigration of 300-400k per year as low wage workers and their dependents are forced to leave the country. It will result in overall growth falling due to falling aggregate demand from those 400k leaving but per capita GDP will rise as there's 400k fewer low and no wage people in the country.
We may have headlines showing the country in recession or zero growth but people will feel better off because within a few years of such action there will be a couple of million fewer people relying on the state for welfare for their dependents (education for many kids, NHS care for families, in some insane cases housing benefits) while removing net negative tax contributions from them.
In a falling or stagnating economy, we can achieve pretty strong net growth in per capita GDP if the government halts low wage immigration and revokes visa status for low wage migrants already in the country. It is within our power to fix this and send these people home unless they have a significant contribution to the tax base of the country which we know only starts at about £45k.
Yes
And I sense we are about to see this experiment playing out in mainland Europe. Remigration
If a paradigm has shifted, it’s the fall of the free trade pro business conservative centre right replaced by the nationalist, protectionist “fuck business” populist right.
Yes, I think that's correct
Britain has enjoyed or endured spectacular levels of immigration in the last 10-20 years. We are constantly assured this contributes to growth. Yet, as @Sandpit shows, the reality is that GDP per capita has not grown at all even as our population has exploded by many millions, putting pressure on everything - from sewage systems to landscapes, from education to health. Meanwhile our cities crumble and we have very real and unpleasant social problems stemming from the migration
Now we are told "another 5 million must come in the next ten years". Why? What the fuck? We don't want any more. Polls show that voters - by almost 2 to 1 - would rather have LESS immigration EVEN IF IT COMES AT THE EXPENSE OF GROWTH
No one buys the "growth" shit any more, and even if they do, they are past caring
I think that's true. There are exceptions for very highly motivated or wealthy individuals, but generally per capita growth does not generally come from opening the floodgates to unskilled or semi-skilled immigration - it comes from low taxes, low but efficient government spending and light but effective regulation.
In short the exact opposite of the route we've been following for more than twenty years.
Yes. And the public has finally woken up to this reality. Hence the paradigm shift
If the key to growth is more immigration, growth should have been stellar, over the past 20 years.
That doesn't necessarily follow. Without immigration we could have had major economic contraction.
If a paradigm has shifted, it’s the fall of the free trade pro business conservative centre right replaced by the nationalist, protectionist “fuck business” populist right.
Yes, I think that's correct
Britain has enjoyed or endured spectacular levels of immigration in the last 10-20 years. We are constantly assured this contributes to growth. Yet, as @Sandpit shows, the reality is that GDP per capita has not grown at all even as our population has exploded by many millions, putting pressure on everything - from sewage systems to landscapes, from education to health. Meanwhile our cities crumble and we have very real and unpleasant social problems stemming from the migration
Now we are told "another 5 million must come in the next ten years". Why? What the fuck? We don't want any more. Polls show that voters - by almost 2 to 1 - would rather have LESS immigration EVEN IF IT COMES AT THE EXPENSE OF GROWTH
No one buys the "growth" shit any more, and even if they do, they are past caring
I think that's true. There are exceptions for very highly motivated or wealthy individuals, but generally per capita growth does not generally come from opening the floodgates to unskilled or semi-skilled immigration - it comes from low taxes, low but efficient government spending and light but effective regulation.
In short the exact opposite of the route we've been following for more than twenty years.
Yes. And the public has finally woken up to this reality. Hence the paradigm shift
Here's a good thought experiment - imagine a scenario where we get a Reform/Tory government next time out and they get serious about immigration, not only do we pause inwards migration from people with income under £50-60k we also pause visa renewals and revoke visas for immigrants who earn under £35k. This results in net emigration of 300-400k per year as low wage workers and their dependents are forced to leave the country. It will result in overall growth falling due to falling aggregate demand from those 400k leaving but per capita GDP will rise as there's 400k fewer low and no wage people in the country.
We may have headlines showing the country in recession or zero growth but people will feel better off because within a few years of such action there will be a couple of million fewer people relying on the state for welfare for their dependents (education for many kids, NHS care for families, in some insane cases housing benefits) while removing net negative tax contributions from them.
In a falling or stagnating economy, we can achieve pretty strong net growth in per capita GDP if the government halts low wage immigration and revokes visa status for low wage migrants already in the country. It is within our power to fix this and send these people home unless they have a significant contribution to the tax base of the country which we know only starts at about £45k.
Yes
And I sense we are about to see this experiment playing out in mainland Europe. Remigration
I agree. The only problem with this is zero growth makes servicing our debt more difficult. And it looks bad for politicians. And its bad for the stock market. So this scenario wont happen.
If a paradigm has shifted, it’s the fall of the free trade pro business conservative centre right replaced by the nationalist, protectionist “fuck business” populist right.
Yes, I think that's correct
Britain has enjoyed or endured spectacular levels of immigration in the last 10-20 years. We are constantly assured this contributes to growth. Yet, as @Sandpit shows, the reality is that GDP per capita has not grown at all even as our population has exploded by many millions, putting pressure on everything - from sewage systems to landscapes, from education to health. Meanwhile our cities crumble and we have very real and unpleasant social problems stemming from the migration
Now we are told "another 5 million must come in the next ten years". Why? What the fuck? We don't want any more. Polls show that voters - by almost 2 to 1 - would rather have LESS immigration EVEN IF IT COMES AT THE EXPENSE OF GROWTH
No one buys the "growth" shit any more, and even if they do, they are past caring
I think that's true. There are exceptions for very highly motivated or wealthy individuals, but generally per capita growth does not generally come from opening the floodgates to unskilled or semi-skilled immigration - it comes from low taxes, low but efficient government spending and light but effective regulation.
In short the exact opposite of the route we've been following for more than twenty years.
Yes. And the public has finally woken up to this reality. Hence the paradigm shift
If the key to growth is more immigration, growth should have been stellar, over the past 20 years.
That doesn't necessarily follow. Without immigration we could have had major economic contraction.
Probably not, but we can never really know.
Agreed. If we halt immigration now we will go into a severe recession that could lastva few years. Which is why we wont halt immigration despite the bleating from the public.
One small example, should we really now believe air safety investigations? Another - will anyone really care about the ~5,000 transgender military personnel set to lose their jobs?
Tariffs announced overnight are set to cost the average American household roughly $2,000 per annum.
They are particularly dependent on Farage, and he's now in his 60s. They need to be cultivating a new young generation, as Le Pen has done with Bardella
That's the exact opposite of what Farage should do if he has any sense. Madame Fasho has nurtured Bardella on her shrivelled dugs for years and now he's plotting to bring her down before the 2027 election if he can. He's seen as less Putin adjacent (MLP borrowed €9m from Vovka) and his personal brand is a bit less Holocaust-y than "Le Pen" so many on the droit feel he's a better shot for President. He's also not (yet) embroiled in a corruption scandal like MLP. She's weaker than she's ever been and will be vulnerable to treachery from Bardella.
Farage is wily enough not to have a remotely viable succession plan in place and avoid all this scheming.
One small example, should we really now believe air safety investigations? Another - will anyone really care about the ~5,000 transgender military personnel set to lose their jobs?
Tariffs announced overnight are set to cost the average American household roughly $2,000 per annum.
I agree. Trump is going in hard to dismantle democracy. The only winners are Putin and Xi. For Europe its a disaster.
If a paradigm has shifted, it’s the fall of the free trade pro business conservative centre right replaced by the nationalist, protectionist “fuck business” populist right.
Yes, I think that's correct
Britain has enjoyed or endured spectacular levels of immigration in the last 10-20 years. We are constantly assured this contributes to growth. Yet, as @Sandpit shows, the reality is that GDP per capita has not grown at all even as our population has exploded by many millions, putting pressure on everything - from sewage systems to landscapes, from education to health. Meanwhile our cities crumble and we have very real and unpleasant social problems stemming from the migration
Now we are told "another 5 million must come in the next ten years". Why? What the fuck? We don't want any more. Polls show that voters - by almost 2 to 1 - would rather have LESS immigration EVEN IF IT COMES AT THE EXPENSE OF GROWTH
No one buys the "growth" shit any more, and even if they do, they are past caring
I think that's true. There are exceptions for very highly motivated or wealthy individuals, but generally per capita growth does not generally come from opening the floodgates to unskilled or semi-skilled immigration - it comes from low taxes, low but efficient government spending and light but effective regulation.
In short the exact opposite of the route we've been following for more than twenty years.
Yes. And the public has finally woken up to this reality. Hence the paradigm shift
If the key to growth is more immigration, growth should have been stellar, over the past 20 years.
That doesn't necessarily follow. Without immigration we could have had major economic contraction.
Probably not, but we can never really know.
The Boriswave was an attempt to prevent or mitigate Brexit-imposed economic contraction.
If a paradigm has shifted, it’s the fall of the free trade pro business conservative centre right replaced by the nationalist, protectionist “fuck business” populist right.
Yes, I think that's correct
Britain has enjoyed or endured spectacular levels of immigration in the last 10-20 years. We are constantly assured this contributes to growth. Yet, as @Sandpit shows, the reality is that GDP per capita has not grown at all even as our population has exploded by many millions, putting pressure on everything - from sewage systems to landscapes, from education to health. Meanwhile our cities crumble and we have very real and unpleasant social problems stemming from the migration
Now we are told "another 5 million must come in the next ten years". Why? What the fuck? We don't want any more. Polls show that voters - by almost 2 to 1 - would rather have LESS immigration EVEN IF IT COMES AT THE EXPENSE OF GROWTH
No one buys the "growth" shit any more, and even if they do, they are past caring
I think that's true. There are exceptions for very highly motivated or wealthy individuals, but generally per capita growth does not generally come from opening the floodgates to unskilled or semi-skilled immigration - it comes from low taxes, low but efficient government spending and light but effective regulation.
In short the exact opposite of the route we've been following for more than twenty years.
Yes. And the public has finally woken up to this reality. Hence the paradigm shift
If the key to growth is more immigration, growth should have been stellar, over the past 20 years.
That doesn't necessarily follow. Without immigration we could have had major economic contraction.
Probably not, but we can never really know.
The Boriswave was an attempt to prevent or mitigate Brexit-imposed economic contraction.
This was predicted at the time of the great sundering but the leavers wouldn't have it.
If a paradigm has shifted, it’s the fall of the free trade pro business conservative centre right replaced by the nationalist, protectionist “fuck business” populist right.
Yes, I think that's correct
Britain has enjoyed or endured spectacular levels of immigration in the last 10-20 years. We are constantly assured this contributes to growth. Yet, as @Sandpit shows, the reality is that GDP per capita has not grown at all even as our population has exploded by many millions, putting pressure on everything - from sewage systems to landscapes, from education to health. Meanwhile our cities crumble and we have very real and unpleasant social problems stemming from the migration
Now we are told "another 5 million must come in the next ten years". Why? What the fuck? We don't want any more. Polls show that voters - by almost 2 to 1 - would rather have LESS immigration EVEN IF IT COMES AT THE EXPENSE OF GROWTH
No one buys the "growth" shit any more, and even if they do, they are past caring
I think that's true. There are exceptions for very highly motivated or wealthy individuals, but generally per capita growth does not generally come from opening the floodgates to unskilled or semi-skilled immigration - it comes from low taxes, low but efficient government spending and light but effective regulation.
In short the exact opposite of the route we've been following for more than twenty years.
Yes. And the public has finally woken up to this reality. Hence the paradigm shift
Here's a good thought experiment - imagine a scenario where we get a Reform/Tory government next time out and they get serious about immigration, not only do we pause inwards migration from people with income under £50-60k we also pause visa renewals and revoke visas for immigrants who earn under £35k. This results in net emigration of 300-400k per year as low wage workers and their dependents are forced to leave the country. It will result in overall growth falling due to falling aggregate demand from those 400k leaving but per capita GDP will rise as there's 400k fewer low and no wage people in the country.
We may have headlines showing the country in recession or zero growth but people will feel better off because within a few years of such action there will be a couple of million fewer people relying on the state for welfare for their dependents (education for many kids, NHS care for families, in some insane cases housing benefits) while removing net negative tax contributions from them.
In a falling or stagnating economy, we can achieve pretty strong net growth in per capita GDP if the government halts low wage immigration and revokes visa status for low wage migrants already in the country. It is within our power to fix this and send these people home unless they have a significant contribution to the tax base of the country which we know only starts at about £45k.
This sounds lovely in principle, but there are good reasons why it is very problematic for politicians in practice:
1. The already stretched and inadequate social care sector relies on imported low wage labour. You want the disabled and our vast and growing numbers of decrepit elderly looking after properly, absent those staff? You have to jack wages up enough to tempt supermarket workers and the like to move out of minimum wage roles and retrain. That's going to be very expensive. 2. The same goes double for the Health Service. £45K is below the starting wage for a doctor, let alone a nurse. If we stop importing anyone other than high wage earners who's going to give all that care? 3. You end immigration, the dependency ratio of the population deteriorates even more rapidly, and that makes the need to do really unpopular things like stripping the gold plate off the state pension and taxing assets, including houses, properly even more pressing. Our economic prospects would be considerably better if retirement provision were less generous and wealthy pensioners were properly rinsed to pay for their own upkeep, but selling a future in which current retirees get smaller pensions and land value tax bills, whilst future ones are told they must work to 75 to get their state handout, is a challenging sell.
Population growth is, ultimately, a Ponzi scheme, and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. They're also lying if they tell you it will be painless to put a stop to - and the longer the country waits to do it, the more painful it will become. It's small wonder that nobody has dared to try, and it'll be fascinating to see what happens if they ever do.
Are Labour in a good position in the polls? No. Are they “on course for re-election”? Far too early to say.
Yes what they have going for them is a divided opposition but they are at the mercy of what happens to that opposition. A long road to travel on that front before we start thinking of the next GE. Conversely, there’s still plenty of time for them to start improving.
At this stage it's hard to see past another Labour -led Government. Crudely put, the more likely a Trumpian breakthrough in poor people places looks, the greater the stampede towards Ed Davey in rich people places.
You can't assemble a right-wing majority in the Commons if you've got the large bulk of the city vote, Scotland and half of Southern England running away from you screaming.
That sounds a lot like “I don’t want it to happen, so it won’t happen”, which was the basis of much commentary on the US elections.
The fact that the Tories lost seats to the Lib Dem’s like Horsham and Chichester, which they have held for 100+ years suggests there is ever so slightly more to it.
The last government shafted everyone who was not a well off pensioner who favoured mass immigration. It’s a surprise they held 121 seats.
Who did they vote for instead?
Anyone they could
The difference is way back in summer 2024 Reform did not, quite, seem like a serious party and a serious alternative
Now they do, which is why they are leading in some polls. Reform are in a sweet spot where, the higher they poll, the higher they WILL poll, as voters flock to them, suddenly seeing them as a proper potential Opposition (with genuine desires to crush immigration)
What is their ceiling? Farage has around 34% approval, so it is at least that. A few more points and they are in overall majority territory
Of course, it may all go the other way. Farage has a heart attack, one of their MPs shags a hummingbird on live TV, Lee Anderson grows a Hitler tache and starts shouting "Schnell!", much could go wrong, very easily
They are particularly dependent on Farage, and he's now in his 60s. They need to be cultivating a new young generation, as Le Pen has done with Bardella
Le Pen's Rassemblement has spent decades striving against the odds.
Those decades of experience have given Le Pen herself credibility, nous and wide contacts to policy intellectuals. She also has a coterie of decent political advisers to help her.
Farage lacks that institutional backing and so is likely to make policy and political mistakes. These are the vulnerabilites of a "one-man band".
Reform, for example, persist in "Thatcherite" economics, which yet are unpopular with their core WWC voters.
Le Pen is far more likely to be next President, than Farage EVER to be PM.
To view keyboard shortcuts, press question mark View keyboard shortcuts Post
See new posts Conversation You reposted George @BehizyTweets Insiders have revealed that President Trump is prepared to go scorched-earth against any Republican Senators who vote against the confirmations of Tulsi Gabbard and RFK Jr.
"If they try to touch Tulsi and Kennedy, then it’s war.” - Trump Advisor
"If Tulsi or Bobby face real trouble, that’s when Trump will really start to fight. They represent the challenging of the status quo of the bureaucracy. That’s what MAGA is about.” - Another Advisor
If RFK jr gets in we could see serious attacks on the pharmaceutical industry. In this testimony he heavily criticised antidepressants for a start saying how difficult it is to get off them.
One small example, should we really now believe air safety investigations? Another - will anyone really care about the ~5,000 transgender military personnel set to lose their jobs?
Tariffs announced overnight are set to cost the average American household roughly $2,000 per annum.
Supporters of the German Democratic Republic felt the same way about the wall coming down.
Use of pronouns banned? What effect do the people responsible for the measure feel will be of benefit to the wider population? Brevity and clarity?
Good. More of it. It is a waste of time, adds nothing to productivity of a business or council.
I've just watched a 3 minute video from my football club with this stuff plastered all over it. On the pitch they are awful. Off the pitch, the stadium is crumbling apart, millions in debt, can't pay the tax they owe, can't pay the ambulances that are required, force the mandatory required ball boys/girls to buy their own refreshment. Yet can still spend the time and money on this stuff.
There is no benefit to the wider population forcing people to put pronoun bollox onto everything. It's not 2018 any more.
If a paradigm has shifted, it’s the fall of the free trade pro business conservative centre right replaced by the nationalist, protectionist “fuck business” populist right.
Yes, I think that's correct
Britain has enjoyed or endured spectacular levels of immigration in the last 10-20 years. We are constantly assured this contributes to growth. Yet, as @Sandpit shows, the reality is that GDP per capita has not grown at all even as our population has exploded by many millions, putting pressure on everything - from sewage systems to landscapes, from education to health. Meanwhile our cities crumble and we have very real and unpleasant social problems stemming from the migration
Now we are told "another 5 million must come in the next ten years". Why? What the fuck? We don't want any more. Polls show that voters - by almost 2 to 1 - would rather have LESS immigration EVEN IF IT COMES AT THE EXPENSE OF GROWTH
No one buys the "growth" shit any more, and even if they do, they are past caring
I think that's true. There are exceptions for very highly motivated or wealthy individuals, but generally per capita growth does not generally come from opening the floodgates to unskilled or semi-skilled immigration - it comes from low taxes, low but efficient government spending and light but effective regulation.
In short the exact opposite of the route we've been following for more than twenty years.
Yes. And the public has finally woken up to this reality. Hence the paradigm shift
Here's a good thought experiment - imagine a scenario where we get a Reform/Tory government next time out and they get serious about immigration, not only do we pause inwards migration from people with income under £50-60k we also pause visa renewals and revoke visas for immigrants who earn under £35k. This results in net emigration of 300-400k per year as low wage workers and their dependents are forced to leave the country. It will result in overall growth falling due to falling aggregate demand from those 400k leaving but per capita GDP will rise as there's 400k fewer low and no wage people in the country.
We may have headlines showing the country in recession or zero growth but people will feel better off because within a few years of such action there will be a couple of million fewer people relying on the state for welfare for their dependents (education for many kids, NHS care for families, in some insane cases housing benefits) while removing net negative tax contributions from them.
In a falling or stagnating economy, we can achieve pretty strong net growth in per capita GDP if the government halts low wage immigration and revokes visa status for low wage migrants already in the country. It is within our power to fix this and send these people home unless they have a significant contribution to the tax base of the country which we know only starts at about £45k.
From the BBC this week:
'We don't just teach - we clothe the kids, feed them and brush their teeth'
St Nicholas is in one of the most deprived parts of Lincolnshire. There are high levels of migration - 71 children moved in and out of the school during the last academic year - and for nearly 70% of the children, English is not their first language.
Mrs Booth has already taken a call this morning about three vulnerable children who are missing - they've not been to school for weeks and all have tuberculosis, an infectious lung disease which can be serious if not treated.
"We think the family are in Europe," says Mrs Booth. "We're fairly sure they were fleeing from debt."
A textbook example of how immigration has made a place poorer.
If a paradigm has shifted, it’s the fall of the free trade pro business conservative centre right replaced by the nationalist, protectionist “fuck business” populist right.
Yes, I think that's correct
Britain has enjoyed or endured spectacular levels of immigration in the last 10-20 years. We are constantly assured this contributes to growth. Yet, as @Sandpit shows, the reality is that GDP per capita has not grown at all even as our population has exploded by many millions, putting pressure on everything - from sewage systems to landscapes, from education to health. Meanwhile our cities crumble and we have very real and unpleasant social problems stemming from the migration
Now we are told "another 5 million must come in the next ten years". Why? What the fuck? We don't want any more. Polls show that voters - by almost 2 to 1 - would rather have LESS immigration EVEN IF IT COMES AT THE EXPENSE OF GROWTH
No one buys the "growth" shit any more, and even if they do, they are past caring
I think that's true. There are exceptions for very highly motivated or wealthy individuals, but generally per capita growth does not generally come from opening the floodgates to unskilled or semi-skilled immigration - it comes from low taxes, low but efficient government spending and light but effective regulation.
In short the exact opposite of the route we've been following for more than twenty years.
Yes. And the public has finally woken up to this reality. Hence the paradigm shift
Here's a good thought experiment - imagine a scenario where we get a Reform/Tory government next time out and they get serious about immigration, not only do we pause inwards migration from people with income under £50-60k we also pause visa renewals and revoke visas for immigrants who earn under £35k. This results in net emigration of 300-400k per year as low wage workers and their dependents are forced to leave the country. It will result in overall growth falling due to falling aggregate demand from those 400k leaving but per capita GDP will rise as there's 400k fewer low and no wage people in the country.
We may have headlines showing the country in recession or zero growth but people will feel better off because within a few years of such action there will be a couple of million fewer people relying on the state for welfare for their dependents (education for many kids, NHS care for families, in some insane cases housing benefits) while removing net negative tax contributions from them.
In a falling or stagnating economy, we can achieve pretty strong net growth in per capita GDP if the government halts low wage immigration and revokes visa status for low wage migrants already in the country. It is within our power to fix this and send these people home unless they have a significant contribution to the tax base of the country which we know only starts at about £45k.
This sounds lovely in principle, but there are good reasons why it is very problematic for politicians in practice:
1. The already stretched and inadequate social care sector relies on imported low wage labour. You want the disabled and our vast and growing numbers of decrepit elderly looking after properly, absent those staff? You have to jack wages up enough to tempt supermarket workers and the like to move out of minimum wage roles and retrain. That's going to be very expensive. 2. The same goes double for the Health Service. £45K is below the starting wage for a doctor, let alone a nurse. If we stop importing anyone other than high wage earners who's going to give all that care? 3. You end immigration, the dependency ratio of the population deteriorates even more rapidly, and that makes the need to do really unpopular things like stripping the gold plate off the state pension and taxing assets, including houses, properly even more pressing. Our economic prospects would be considerably better if retirement provision were less generous and wealthy pensioners were properly rinsed to pay for their own upkeep, but selling a future in which current retirees get smaller pensions and land value tax bills, whilst future ones are told they must work to 75 to get their state handout, is a challenging sell.
Population growth is, ultimately, a Ponzi scheme, and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. They're also lying if they tell you it will be painless to put a stop to - and the longer the country waits to do it, the more painful it will become. It's small wonder that nobody has dared to try, and it'll be fascinating to see what happens if they ever do.
The are ways to avoid it becoming a Ponzi scheme. Two in particular spring to mind.
1. Short-term renewable visas that confer no right to remain on expiry.
If a paradigm has shifted, it’s the fall of the free trade pro business conservative centre right replaced by the nationalist, protectionist “fuck business” populist right.
Yes, I think that's correct
Britain has enjoyed or endured spectacular levels of immigration in the last 10-20 years. We are constantly assured this contributes to growth. Yet, as @Sandpit shows, the reality is that GDP per capita has not grown at all even as our population has exploded by many millions, putting pressure on everything - from sewage systems to landscapes, from education to health. Meanwhile our cities crumble and we have very real and unpleasant social problems stemming from the migration
Now we are told "another 5 million must come in the next ten years". Why? What the fuck? We don't want any more. Polls show that voters - by almost 2 to 1 - would rather have LESS immigration EVEN IF IT COMES AT THE EXPENSE OF GROWTH
No one buys the "growth" shit any more, and even if they do, they are past caring
I think that's true. There are exceptions for very highly motivated or wealthy individuals, but generally per capita growth does not generally come from opening the floodgates to unskilled or semi-skilled immigration - it comes from low taxes, low but efficient government spending and light but effective regulation.
In short the exact opposite of the route we've been following for more than twenty years.
Yes. And the public has finally woken up to this reality. Hence the paradigm shift
Here's a good thought experiment - imagine a scenario where we get a Reform/Tory government next time out and they get serious about immigration, not only do we pause inwards migration from people with income under £50-60k we also pause visa renewals and revoke visas for immigrants who earn under £35k. This results in net emigration of 300-400k per year as low wage workers and their dependents are forced to leave the country. It will result in overall growth falling due to falling aggregate demand from those 400k leaving but per capita GDP will rise as there's 400k fewer low and no wage people in the country.
We may have headlines showing the country in recession or zero growth but people will feel better off because within a few years of such action there will be a couple of million fewer people relying on the state for welfare for their dependents (education for many kids, NHS care for families, in some insane cases housing benefits) while removing net negative tax contributions from them.
In a falling or stagnating economy, we can achieve pretty strong net growth in per capita GDP if the government halts low wage immigration and revokes visa status for low wage migrants already in the country. It is within our power to fix this and send these people home unless they have a significant contribution to the tax base of the country which we know only starts at about £45k.
Yes
And I sense we are about to see this experiment playing out in mainland Europe. Remigration
Do you still support unrestricted immigration from the EU ?
If so where do you think much of that remigration will head to ?
If a paradigm has shifted, it’s the fall of the free trade pro business conservative centre right replaced by the nationalist, protectionist “fuck business” populist right.
Yes, I think that's correct
Britain has enjoyed or endured spectacular levels of immigration in the last 10-20 years. We are constantly assured this contributes to growth. Yet, as @Sandpit shows, the reality is that GDP per capita has not grown at all even as our population has exploded by many millions, putting pressure on everything - from sewage systems to landscapes, from education to health. Meanwhile our cities crumble and we have very real and unpleasant social problems stemming from the migration
Now we are told "another 5 million must come in the next ten years". Why? What the fuck? We don't want any more. Polls show that voters - by almost 2 to 1 - would rather have LESS immigration EVEN IF IT COMES AT THE EXPENSE OF GROWTH
No one buys the "growth" shit any more, and even if they do, they are past caring
I think that's true. There are exceptions for very highly motivated or wealthy individuals, but generally per capita growth does not generally come from opening the floodgates to unskilled or semi-skilled immigration - it comes from low taxes, low but efficient government spending and light but effective regulation.
In short the exact opposite of the route we've been following for more than twenty years.
Yes. And the public has finally woken up to this reality. Hence the paradigm shift
Here's a good thought experiment - imagine a scenario where we get a Reform/Tory government next time out and they get serious about immigration, not only do we pause inwards migration from people with income under £50-60k we also pause visa renewals and revoke visas for immigrants who earn under £35k. This results in net emigration of 300-400k per year as low wage workers and their dependents are forced to leave the country. It will result in overall growth falling due to falling aggregate demand from those 400k leaving but per capita GDP will rise as there's 400k fewer low and no wage people in the country.
We may have headlines showing the country in recession or zero growth but people will feel better off because within a few years of such action there will be a couple of million fewer people relying on the state for welfare for their dependents (education for many kids, NHS care for families, in some insane cases housing benefits) while removing net negative tax contributions from them.
In a falling or stagnating economy, we can achieve pretty strong net growth in per capita GDP if the government halts low wage immigration and revokes visa status for low wage migrants already in the country. It is within our power to fix this and send these people home unless they have a significant contribution to the tax base of the country which we know only starts at about £45k.
This sounds lovely in principle, but there are good reasons why it is very problematic for politicians in practice:
1. The already stretched and inadequate social care sector relies on imported low wage labour. You want the disabled and our vast and growing numbers of decrepit elderly looking after properly, absent those staff? You have to jack wages up enough to tempt supermarket workers and the like to move out of minimum wage roles and retrain. That's going to be very expensive. 2. The same goes double for the Health Service. £45K is below the starting wage for a doctor, let alone a nurse. If we stop importing anyone other than high wage earners who's going to give all that care? 3. You end immigration, the dependency ratio of the population deteriorates even more rapidly, and that makes the need to do really unpopular things like stripping the gold plate off the state pension and taxing assets, including houses, properly even more pressing. Our economic prospects would be considerably better if retirement provision were less generous and wealthy pensioners were properly rinsed to pay for their own upkeep, but selling a future in which current retirees get smaller pensions and land value tax bills, whilst future ones are told they must work to 75 to get their state handout, is a challenging sell.
Population growth is, ultimately, a Ponzi scheme, and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. They're also lying if they tell you it will be painless to put a stop to - and the longer the country waits to do it, the more painful it will become. It's small wonder that nobody has dared to try, and it'll be fascinating to see what happens if they ever do.
Even Reform are unlikely to do anything drastic. Oh sure they will try but as soon as a severe resession hits they will roll back.
To view keyboard shortcuts, press question mark View keyboard shortcuts Post
See new posts Conversation You reposted George @BehizyTweets Insiders have revealed that President Trump is prepared to go scorched-earth against any Republican Senators who vote against the confirmations of Tulsi Gabbard and RFK Jr.
"If they try to touch Tulsi and Kennedy, then it’s war.” - Trump Advisor
"If Tulsi or Bobby face real trouble, that’s when Trump will really start to fight. They represent the challenging of the status quo of the bureaucracy. That’s what MAGA is about.” - Another Advisor
If a paradigm has shifted, it’s the fall of the free trade pro business conservative centre right replaced by the nationalist, protectionist “fuck business” populist right.
Yes, I think that's correct
Britain has enjoyed or endured spectacular levels of immigration in the last 10-20 years. We are constantly assured this contributes to growth. Yet, as @Sandpit shows, the reality is that GDP per capita has not grown at all even as our population has exploded by many millions, putting pressure on everything - from sewage systems to landscapes, from education to health. Meanwhile our cities crumble and we have very real and unpleasant social problems stemming from the migration
Now we are told "another 5 million must come in the next ten years". Why? What the fuck? We don't want any more. Polls show that voters - by almost 2 to 1 - would rather have LESS immigration EVEN IF IT COMES AT THE EXPENSE OF GROWTH
No one buys the "growth" shit any more, and even if they do, they are past caring
I think that's true. There are exceptions for very highly motivated or wealthy individuals, but generally per capita growth does not generally come from opening the floodgates to unskilled or semi-skilled immigration - it comes from low taxes, low but efficient government spending and light but effective regulation.
In short the exact opposite of the route we've been following for more than twenty years.
Yes. And the public has finally woken up to this reality. Hence the paradigm shift
Here's a good thought experiment - imagine a scenario where we get a Reform/Tory government next time out and they get serious about immigration, not only do we pause inwards migration from people with income under £50-60k we also pause visa renewals and revoke visas for immigrants who earn under £35k. This results in net emigration of 300-400k per year as low wage workers and their dependents are forced to leave the country. It will result in overall growth falling due to falling aggregate demand from those 400k leaving but per capita GDP will rise as there's 400k fewer low and no wage people in the country.
We may have headlines showing the country in recession or zero growth but people will feel better off because within a few years of such action there will be a couple of million fewer people relying on the state for welfare for their dependents (education for many kids, NHS care for families, in some insane cases housing benefits) while removing net negative tax contributions from them.
In a falling or stagnating economy, we can achieve pretty strong net growth in per capita GDP if the government halts low wage immigration and revokes visa status for low wage migrants already in the country. It is within our power to fix this and send these people home unless they have a significant contribution to the tax base of the country which we know only starts at about £45k.
This sounds lovely in principle, but there are good reasons why it is very problematic for politicians in practice:
1. The already stretched and inadequate social care sector relies on imported low wage labour. You want the disabled and our vast and growing numbers of decrepit elderly looking after properly, absent those staff? You have to jack wages up enough to tempt supermarket workers and the like to move out of minimum wage roles and retrain. That's going to be very expensive. 2. The same goes double for the Health Service. £45K is below the starting wage for a doctor, let alone a nurse. If we stop importing anyone other than high wage earners who's going to give all that care? 3. You end immigration, the dependency ratio of the population deteriorates even more rapidly, and that makes the need to do really unpopular things like stripping the gold plate off the state pension and taxing assets, including houses, properly even more pressing. Our economic prospects would be considerably better if retirement provision were less generous and wealthy pensioners were properly rinsed to pay for their own upkeep, but selling a future in which current retirees get smaller pensions and land value tax bills, whilst future ones are told they must work to 75 to get their state handout, is a challenging sell.
Population growth is, ultimately, a Ponzi scheme, and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. They're also lying if they tell you it will be painless to put a stop to - and the longer the country waits to do it, the more painful it will become. It's small wonder that nobody has dared to try, and it'll be fascinating to see what happens if they ever do.
The are ways to avoid it becoming a Ponzi scheme. Two in particular spring to mind.
1. Short-term renewable visas that confer no right to remain on expiry.
To view keyboard shortcuts, press question mark View keyboard shortcuts Post
See new posts Conversation You reposted George @BehizyTweets Insiders have revealed that President Trump is prepared to go scorched-earth against any Republican Senators who vote against the confirmations of Tulsi Gabbard and RFK Jr.
"If they try to touch Tulsi and Kennedy, then it’s war.” - Trump Advisor
"If Tulsi or Bobby face real trouble, that’s when Trump will really start to fight. They represent the challenging of the status quo of the bureaucracy. That’s what MAGA is about.” - Another Advisor
If a paradigm has shifted, it’s the fall of the free trade pro business conservative centre right replaced by the nationalist, protectionist “fuck business” populist right.
Yes, I think that's correct
Britain has enjoyed or endured spectacular levels of immigration in the last 10-20 years. We are constantly assured this contributes to growth. Yet, as @Sandpit shows, the reality is that GDP per capita has not grown at all even as our population has exploded by many millions, putting pressure on everything - from sewage systems to landscapes, from education to health. Meanwhile our cities crumble and we have very real and unpleasant social problems stemming from the migration
Now we are told "another 5 million must come in the next ten years". Why? What the fuck? We don't want any more. Polls show that voters - by almost 2 to 1 - would rather have LESS immigration EVEN IF IT COMES AT THE EXPENSE OF GROWTH
No one buys the "growth" shit any more, and even if they do, they are past caring
I think that's true. There are exceptions for very highly motivated or wealthy individuals, but generally per capita growth does not generally come from opening the floodgates to unskilled or semi-skilled immigration - it comes from low taxes, low but efficient government spending and light but effective regulation.
In short the exact opposite of the route we've been following for more than twenty years.
Yes. And the public has finally woken up to this reality. Hence the paradigm shift
Here's a good thought experiment - imagine a scenario where we get a Reform/Tory government next time out and they get serious about immigration, not only do we pause inwards migration from people with income under £50-60k we also pause visa renewals and revoke visas for immigrants who earn under £35k. This results in net emigration of 300-400k per year as low wage workers and their dependents are forced to leave the country. It will result in overall growth falling due to falling aggregate demand from those 400k leaving but per capita GDP will rise as there's 400k fewer low and no wage people in the country.
We may have headlines showing the country in recession or zero growth but people will feel better off because within a few years of such action there will be a couple of million fewer people relying on the state for welfare for their dependents (education for many kids, NHS care for families, in some insane cases housing benefits) while removing net negative tax contributions from them.
In a falling or stagnating economy, we can achieve pretty strong net growth in per capita GDP if the government halts low wage immigration and revokes visa status for low wage migrants already in the country. It is within our power to fix this and send these people home unless they have a significant contribution to the tax base of the country which we know only starts at about £45k.
This sounds lovely in principle, but there are good reasons why it is very problematic for politicians in practice:
1. The already stretched and inadequate social care sector relies on imported low wage labour. You want the disabled and our vast and growing numbers of decrepit elderly looking after properly, absent those staff? You have to jack wages up enough to tempt supermarket workers and the like to move out of minimum wage roles and retrain. That's going to be very expensive. 2. The same goes double for the Health Service. £45K is below the starting wage for a doctor, let alone a nurse. If we stop importing anyone other than high wage earners who's going to give all that care? 3. You end immigration, the dependency ratio of the population deteriorates even more rapidly, and that makes the need to do really unpopular things like stripping the gold plate off the state pension and taxing assets, including houses, properly even more pressing. Our economic prospects would be considerably better if retirement provision were less generous and wealthy pensioners were properly rinsed to pay for their own upkeep, but selling a future in which current retirees get smaller pensions and land value tax bills, whilst future ones are told they must work to 75 to get their state handout, is a challenging sell.
Population growth is, ultimately, a Ponzi scheme, and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. They're also lying if they tell you it will be painless to put a stop to - and the longer the country waits to do it, the more painful it will become. It's small wonder that nobody has dared to try, and it'll be fascinating to see what happens if they ever do.
The are ways to avoid it becoming a Ponzi scheme. Two in particular spring to mind.
1. Short-term renewable visas that confer no right to remain on expiry.
2. BUILD MILLIONS MORE F*****G HOUSES!!!
Try telling the nimbys that.
Where do you live, who’s your MP and how much is development delayed or cancelled by activist opponents in your area?
If a paradigm has shifted, it’s the fall of the free trade pro business conservative centre right replaced by the nationalist, protectionist “fuck business” populist right.
Yes, I think that's correct
Britain has enjoyed or endured spectacular levels of immigration in the last 10-20 years. We are constantly assured this contributes to growth. Yet, as @Sandpit shows, the reality is that GDP per capita has not grown at all even as our population has exploded by many millions, putting pressure on everything - from sewage systems to landscapes, from education to health. Meanwhile our cities crumble and we have very real and unpleasant social problems stemming from the migration
Now we are told "another 5 million must come in the next ten years". Why? What the fuck? We don't want any more. Polls show that voters - by almost 2 to 1 - would rather have LESS immigration EVEN IF IT COMES AT THE EXPENSE OF GROWTH
No one buys the "growth" shit any more, and even if they do, they are past caring
I predict that the party which most convincingly argues that it will curtail immigration in 2028 will do very well, and will likely win. Labour cannot do that, the Tories can't, not any more, so we are left with Reform
Was talking with a builder yesterday working alone. They can’t hire labourers or apprentices. The work is too hard apparently. Not the first time I heard that story.
Someone has to do the hard work.
Yes, robots. And I'm quite serious
If only there was a really famous British company that sold capital equipment for builders, that lets one man dig a hole in one day that would take three men a week to do by hand.
Sort of.
On many jobs, especially on non-greenfield sites, you need a digger driver *and* a spotter outside whilst digging. Whilst in the cab of even a small machine such as a 3CX, you cannot see what your bucket has just uncovered very well, so someone standing outside can get a different angle and see the pipe or cable that you're about to hit.
The same with surveyors: you used to need at least two people to survey (and preferably three): one to operate the level or theodolite, and one to hold the staff at the point you are measuring - the third might be there to generally help or record the data. Nowadays, laser levels can be operated by just one person: they setup the base station laser, then walk the staff around the points to be measured. Except often they will use two, or even three, people, for a host of reasons: not least are members of the public interfering with the kit and ruining a few hours of work.
Automation and mechanisation can save a lot of labour, but not as much as you might at first think.
If a paradigm has shifted, it’s the fall of the free trade pro business conservative centre right replaced by the nationalist, protectionist “fuck business” populist right.
Yes, I think that's correct
Britain has enjoyed or endured spectacular levels of immigration in the last 10-20 years. We are constantly assured this contributes to growth. Yet, as @Sandpit shows, the reality is that GDP per capita has not grown at all even as our population has exploded by many millions, putting pressure on everything - from sewage systems to landscapes, from education to health. Meanwhile our cities crumble and we have very real and unpleasant social problems stemming from the migration
Now we are told "another 5 million must come in the next ten years". Why? What the fuck? We don't want any more. Polls show that voters - by almost 2 to 1 - would rather have LESS immigration EVEN IF IT COMES AT THE EXPENSE OF GROWTH
No one buys the "growth" shit any more, and even if they do, they are past caring
I think that's true. There are exceptions for very highly motivated or wealthy individuals, but generally per capita growth does not generally come from opening the floodgates to unskilled or semi-skilled immigration - it comes from low taxes, low but efficient government spending and light but effective regulation.
In short the exact opposite of the route we've been following for more than twenty years.
Yes. And the public has finally woken up to this reality. Hence the paradigm shift
Here's a good thought experiment - imagine a scenario where we get a Reform/Tory government next time out and they get serious about immigration, not only do we pause inwards migration from people with income under £50-60k we also pause visa renewals and revoke visas for immigrants who earn under £35k. This results in net emigration of 300-400k per year as low wage workers and their dependents are forced to leave the country. It will result in overall growth falling due to falling aggregate demand from those 400k leaving but per capita GDP will rise as there's 400k fewer low and no wage people in the country.
We may have headlines showing the country in recession or zero growth but people will feel better off because within a few years of such action there will be a couple of million fewer people relying on the state for welfare for their dependents (education for many kids, NHS care for families, in some insane cases housing benefits) while removing net negative tax contributions from them.
In a falling or stagnating economy, we can achieve pretty strong net growth in per capita GDP if the government halts low wage immigration and revokes visa status for low wage migrants already in the country. It is within our power to fix this and send these people home unless they have a significant contribution to the tax base of the country which we know only starts at about £45k.
That's entirely true, but it would be enormously disruptive and the market wage for shelf stackers and social care workers would rocket. The NHS in particular would come under huge funding pressure, particularly as it already suffers from Baumol's cost disease. And if you thought the reaction to employer NICs was bad....
But we would finally fix our unusually bad problem with (relative) in-work poverty. PB doesn't like relative measures, but it's really important here for making work at the bottom of the labour market pay for a half decent lifestyle, with median wages the price setter for stuff like eating out.
So it would need to be brought in very gradually. In the long term, it must be accompanied with something that makes having children very attractive - income tax break allowances, council tax exemptions, stamp duty abolished etc. Otherwise the dependency ratio - which isn't too bad with current immigration levels - would spiral out of control.
Labour may be on course to be re elected in most polls but if they are it is only in a hung parliament reliant on LD support those same polls largely suggest. The LDs would also play hardball in return for their support given they want a softer Brexit and PR and are opposed to a number of the Labour tax rises, the winter fuel allowance cut and oppose Heathrow expansion too.
One or two polls also suggest the Tories and Reform combined are not far off a majority either so still all to play for
On Friday morning, the staffers at a half dozen U.S.-funded medical facilities in Sudan who care for severely malnourished children had a choice to make: Defy President Donald Trump’s order to immediately stop their operations or let up to 100 babies and toddlers die.
They chose the children.
In spite of the order, they will keep their facilities open for as long as they can, according to three people with direct knowledge of the situation. The people requested anonymity for fear that the administration might target their group for reprisals. Trump’s order also meant they would stop receiving new, previously approved funds to cover salaries, IV bags and other supplies. They said it’s a matter of days, not weeks, before they run out.
American-funded aid organizations around the globe, charged with providing lifesaving care for the most desperate and vulnerable populations imaginable, have for days been forced to completely halt their operations, turn away patients and lay off staff following a series of sudden stop-work demands from the Trump administration. Despite an announcement earlier this week ostensibly allowing lifesaving operations to continue, those earlier orders have not been rescinded.
If a paradigm has shifted, it’s the fall of the free trade pro business conservative centre right replaced by the nationalist, protectionist “fuck business” populist right.
Yes, I think that's correct
Britain has enjoyed or endured spectacular levels of immigration in the last 10-20 years. We are constantly assured this contributes to growth. Yet, as @Sandpit shows, the reality is that GDP per capita has not grown at all even as our population has exploded by many millions, putting pressure on everything - from sewage systems to landscapes, from education to health. Meanwhile our cities crumble and we have very real and unpleasant social problems stemming from the migration
Now we are told "another 5 million must come in the next ten years". Why? What the fuck? We don't want any more. Polls show that voters - by almost 2 to 1 - would rather have LESS immigration EVEN IF IT COMES AT THE EXPENSE OF GROWTH
No one buys the "growth" shit any more, and even if they do, they are past caring
I think that's true. There are exceptions for very highly motivated or wealthy individuals, but generally per capita growth does not generally come from opening the floodgates to unskilled or semi-skilled immigration - it comes from low taxes, low but efficient government spending and light but effective regulation.
In short the exact opposite of the route we've been following for more than twenty years.
Yes. And the public has finally woken up to this reality. Hence the paradigm shift
Here's a good thought experiment - imagine a scenario where we get a Reform/Tory government next time out and they get serious about immigration, not only do we pause inwards migration from people with income under £50-60k we also pause visa renewals and revoke visas for immigrants who earn under £35k. This results in net emigration of 300-400k per year as low wage workers and their dependents are forced to leave the country. It will result in overall growth falling due to falling aggregate demand from those 400k leaving but per capita GDP will rise as there's 400k fewer low and no wage people in the country.
We may have headlines showing the country in recession or zero growth but people will feel better off because within a few years of such action there will be a couple of million fewer people relying on the state for welfare for their dependents (education for many kids, NHS care for families, in some insane cases housing benefits) while removing net negative tax contributions from them.
In a falling or stagnating economy, we can achieve pretty strong net growth in per capita GDP if the government halts low wage immigration and revokes visa status for low wage migrants already in the country. It is within our power to fix this and send these people home unless they have a significant contribution to the tax base of the country which we know only starts at about £45k.
Yes
And I sense we are about to see this experiment playing out in mainland Europe. Remigration
Do you still support unrestricted immigration from the EU ?
If so where do you think much of that remigration will head to ?
I no longer support unrestricted immigration from anywhere. I think we need effective net zero migration, and it WILL be painful, but that's what we need
Indeed we almost certainly need to go further and do what @MaxPB suggests, revoke visas, no indefinite right to remain, send people home, and so forth
RFK JR: Listen, I know people, including members of my family, who've had a much worse time getting off of SSRIs than they did, than people have getting off heroin
To view keyboard shortcuts, press question mark View keyboard shortcuts Post
See new posts Conversation You reposted George @BehizyTweets Insiders have revealed that President Trump is prepared to go scorched-earth against any Republican Senators who vote against the confirmations of Tulsi Gabbard and RFK Jr.
"If they try to touch Tulsi and Kennedy, then it’s war.” - Trump Advisor
"If Tulsi or Bobby face real trouble, that’s when Trump will really start to fight. They represent the challenging of the status quo of the bureaucracy. That’s what MAGA is about.” - Another Advisor
If you can explain how we drastically cut immigration without causing a severe recession im all ears.
Britain seems to have got itself into a bizarre economic model which requires the import of migrants on an historic scale just to keep on life support.
Other models are available, though a recession may well be required to transition. Although, isn’t the UK essentially already in recession?
As far as Leon's claim that Reform now seems like a "serious" alternative:
this is ambiguous.
Yes, they are serious, insofar as a wasted vote argument can no longer be used against them.
But, intellectually, they are not serious at all. There is no thinking going on at all as to HOW they will improve UK's desperate dependence on immigration. Nor enough self-critical capacity to realise Brexit worsened the immigration situation.
RFK Jr. just pulled back the curtain on what many of us have been warning about for years: The Democrats aren’t just complicit in Big Pharma’s agenda—they are its enforcers.
They don’t just “advocate” for the industry; they prop it up, protect it, and silence anyone who dares to challenge it. Truth, ethics, and even your health are expendable when profits and control are on the line.
If a paradigm has shifted, it’s the fall of the free trade pro business conservative centre right replaced by the nationalist, protectionist “fuck business” populist right.
Yes, I think that's correct
Britain has enjoyed or endured spectacular levels of immigration in the last 10-20 years. We are constantly assured this contributes to growth. Yet, as @Sandpit shows, the reality is that GDP per capita has not grown at all even as our population has exploded by many millions, putting pressure on everything - from sewage systems to landscapes, from education to health. Meanwhile our cities crumble and we have very real and unpleasant social problems stemming from the migration
Now we are told "another 5 million must come in the next ten years". Why? What the fuck? We don't want any more. Polls show that voters - by almost 2 to 1 - would rather have LESS immigration EVEN IF IT COMES AT THE EXPENSE OF GROWTH
No one buys the "growth" shit any more, and even if they do, they are past caring
I think that's true. There are exceptions for very highly motivated or wealthy individuals, but generally per capita growth does not generally come from opening the floodgates to unskilled or semi-skilled immigration - it comes from low taxes, low but efficient government spending and light but effective regulation.
In short the exact opposite of the route we've been following for more than twenty years.
Yes. And the public has finally woken up to this reality. Hence the paradigm shift
Here's a good thought experiment - imagine a scenario where we get a Reform/Tory government next time out and they get serious about immigration, not only do we pause inwards migration from people with income under £50-60k we also pause visa renewals and revoke visas for immigrants who earn under £35k. This results in net emigration of 300-400k per year as low wage workers and their dependents are forced to leave the country. It will result in overall growth falling due to falling aggregate demand from those 400k leaving but per capita GDP will rise as there's 400k fewer low and no wage people in the country.
We may have headlines showing the country in recession or zero growth but people will feel better off because within a few years of such action there will be a couple of million fewer people relying on the state for welfare for their dependents (education for many kids, NHS care for families, in some insane cases housing benefits) while removing net negative tax contributions from them.
In a falling or stagnating economy, we can achieve pretty strong net growth in per capita GDP if the government halts low wage immigration and revokes visa status for low wage migrants already in the country. It is within our power to fix this and send these people home unless they have a significant contribution to the tax base of the country which we know only starts at about £45k.
Yes
And I sense we are about to see this experiment playing out in mainland Europe. Remigration
Do you still support unrestricted immigration from the EU ?
If so where do you think much of that remigration will head to ?
I no longer support unrestricted immigration from anywhere. I think we need effective net zero migration, and it WILL be painful, but that's what we need
Indeed we almost certainly need to go further and do what @MaxPB suggests, revoke visas, no indefinite right to remain, send people home, and so forth
And are you prepared to forego your agreeable (and yes, paying lots of tax) globetrotting lifestyle to spend your last few working years caring for people even older than you in Newent?
RFK Jr. ripped the lid off a scandal the media won’t touch—SSRIs are a chemical straitjacket, handed out like vitamins while withdrawal turns lives into living hell. Doctors gaslight patients, calling it a “relapse” when in reality, they’re trapped in a pharmaceutical chokehold.
RFK Jr. just pulled back the curtain on what many of us have been warning about for years: The Democrats aren’t just complicit in Big Pharma’s agenda—they are its enforcers.
They don’t just “advocate” for the industry; they prop it up, protect it, and silence anyone who dares to challenge it. Truth, ethics, and even your health are expendable when profits and control are on the line.
As far as Leon's claim that Reform now seems like a "serious" alternative:
this is ambiguous.
Yes, they are serious, insofar as a wasted vote argument can no longer be used against them.
But, intellectually, they are not serious at all. There is no thinking going on at all as to HOW they will improve UK's desperate dependence on immigration. Nor enough self-critical capacity to realise Brexit worsened the immigration situation.
I agree. Not serious at all. A party for boomers mainly.
Still it's a real plus for democracy in the UK to have a party articulating one of the acutest discontents of "left-behind" voters. And with a possibility of breaking through in seat numbers.
The more interesting question for me is: what happened in about November 2024 to send Reform surging? Because their rise has been slow but relentless since
Badenoch became Tory leader.
Well spotted
That must be it? I cannot think of anything else
I think that’s unfair. Complaints that she hasn’t turned around an epoch making defeat in 3 months is unreasonable.
That has happened is that Labour has disappointed, but people are not willing to give the Tories a chance yet. The Lib Dems and Greens have their niche but no wider relevance.
So we have seen a move of soft Labour to WNV and Reform. It’s not particularly Kemi’s fault.
This, many times over. The header references a 3 point Labour lead, but: 67% of people said they would not consider voting Labour, compared to 62% said they would not vote Conservative. 29% (who didn't select Con) said they would consider voting for them, but only 24% (who didn't select Lab) said they would consider voting for them. Reform figures were not as good as Con.
Kemi is doing better than Starmer in leader polls. Cons are more trusted on economy.
Confidence in economy, Kemi wins hands down against Starmer and Farage.
People are not willing yet to hand Conservatives their vote, but according to the poll detail, it's clear that they are still in the race.
RFK Jr. just pulled back the curtain on what many of us have been warning about for years: The Democrats aren’t just complicit in Big Pharma’s agenda—they are its enforcers.
They don’t just “advocate” for the industry; they prop it up, protect it, and silence anyone who dares to challenge it. Truth, ethics, and even your health are expendable when profits and control are on the line.
If a paradigm has shifted, it’s the fall of the free trade pro business conservative centre right replaced by the nationalist, protectionist “fuck business” populist right.
Yes, I think that's correct
Britain has enjoyed or endured spectacular levels of immigration in the last 10-20 years. We are constantly assured this contributes to growth. Yet, as @Sandpit shows, the reality is that GDP per capita has not grown at all even as our population has exploded by many millions, putting pressure on everything - from sewage systems to landscapes, from education to health. Meanwhile our cities crumble and we have very real and unpleasant social problems stemming from the migration
Now we are told "another 5 million must come in the next ten years". Why? What the fuck? We don't want any more. Polls show that voters - by almost 2 to 1 - would rather have LESS immigration EVEN IF IT COMES AT THE EXPENSE OF GROWTH
No one buys the "growth" shit any more, and even if they do, they are past caring
I think that's true. There are exceptions for very highly motivated or wealthy individuals, but generally per capita growth does not generally come from opening the floodgates to unskilled or semi-skilled immigration - it comes from low taxes, low but efficient government spending and light but effective regulation.
In short the exact opposite of the route we've been following for more than twenty years.
Yes. And the public has finally woken up to this reality. Hence the paradigm shift
Here's a good thought experiment - imagine a scenario where we get a Reform/Tory government next time out and they get serious about immigration, not only do we pause inwards migration from people with income under £50-60k we also pause visa renewals and revoke visas for immigrants who earn under £35k. This results in net emigration of 300-400k per year as low wage workers and their dependents are forced to leave the country. It will result in overall growth falling due to falling aggregate demand from those 400k leaving but per capita GDP will rise as there's 400k fewer low and no wage people in the country.
We may have headlines showing the country in recession or zero growth but people will feel better off because within a few years of such action there will be a couple of million fewer people relying on the state for welfare for their dependents (education for many kids, NHS care for families, in some insane cases housing benefits) while removing net negative tax contributions from them.
In a falling or stagnating economy, we can achieve pretty strong net growth in per capita GDP if the government halts low wage immigration and revokes visa status for low wage migrants already in the country. It is within our power to fix this and send these people home unless they have a significant contribution to the tax base of the country which we know only starts at about £45k.
That's entirely true, but it would be enormously disruptive and the market wage for shelf stackers and social care workers would rocket. The NHS in particular would come under huge funding pressure, particularly as it already suffers from Baumol's cost disease. And if you thought the reaction to employer NICs was bad....
But we would finally fix our unusually bad problem with (relative) in-work poverty. PB doesn't like relative measures, but it's really important here for making work at the bottom of the labour market pay for a half decent lifestyle, with median wages the price setter for stuff like eating out.
So it would need to be brought in very gradually. In the long term, it must be accompanied with something that makes having children very attractive - income tax break allowances, council tax exemptions, stamp duty abolished etc. Otherwise the dependency ratio - which isn't too bad with current immigration levels - would spiral out of control.
Increased child benefit and married couples tax allowance too
If a paradigm has shifted, it’s the fall of the free trade pro business conservative centre right replaced by the nationalist, protectionist “fuck business” populist right.
Yes, I think that's correct
Britain has enjoyed or endured spectacular levels of immigration in the last 10-20 years. We are constantly assured this contributes to growth. Yet, as @Sandpit shows, the reality is that GDP per capita has not grown at all even as our population has exploded by many millions, putting pressure on everything - from sewage systems to landscapes, from education to health. Meanwhile our cities crumble and we have very real and unpleasant social problems stemming from the migration
Now we are told "another 5 million must come in the next ten years". Why? What the fuck? We don't want any more. Polls show that voters - by almost 2 to 1 - would rather have LESS immigration EVEN IF IT COMES AT THE EXPENSE OF GROWTH
No one buys the "growth" shit any more, and even if they do, they are past caring
I think that's true. There are exceptions for very highly motivated or wealthy individuals, but generally per capita growth does not generally come from opening the floodgates to unskilled or semi-skilled immigration - it comes from low taxes, low but efficient government spending and light but effective regulation.
In short the exact opposite of the route we've been following for more than twenty years.
Yes. And the public has finally woken up to this reality. Hence the paradigm shift
Here's a good thought experiment - imagine a scenario where we get a Reform/Tory government next time out and they get serious about immigration, not only do we pause inwards migration from people with income under £50-60k we also pause visa renewals and revoke visas for immigrants who earn under £35k. This results in net emigration of 300-400k per year as low wage workers and their dependents are forced to leave the country. It will result in overall growth falling due to falling aggregate demand from those 400k leaving but per capita GDP will rise as there's 400k fewer low and no wage people in the country.
We may have headlines showing the country in recession or zero growth but people will feel better off because within a few years of such action there will be a couple of million fewer people relying on the state for welfare for their dependents (education for many kids, NHS care for families, in some insane cases housing benefits) while removing net negative tax contributions from them.
In a falling or stagnating economy, we can achieve pretty strong net growth in per capita GDP if the government halts low wage immigration and revokes visa status for low wage migrants already in the country. It is within our power to fix this and send these people home unless they have a significant contribution to the tax base of the country which we know only starts at about £45k.
Yes
And I sense we are about to see this experiment playing out in mainland Europe. Remigration
Do you still support unrestricted immigration from the EU ?
If so where do you think much of that remigration will head to ?
I no longer support unrestricted immigration from anywhere. I think we need effective net zero migration, and it WILL be painful, but that's what we need
Indeed we almost certainly need to go further and do what @MaxPB suggests, revoke visas, no indefinite right to remain, send people home, and so forth
So you've given up all your happy clappy crap of allowing under 30s to have unrestricted immigration from the EU ?
To view keyboard shortcuts, press question mark View keyboard shortcuts Post
See new posts Conversation You reposted George @BehizyTweets Insiders have revealed that President Trump is prepared to go scorched-earth against any Republican Senators who vote against the confirmations of Tulsi Gabbard and RFK Jr.
"If they try to touch Tulsi and Kennedy, then it’s war.” - Trump Advisor
"If Tulsi or Bobby face real trouble, that’s when Trump will really start to fight. They represent the challenging of the status quo of the bureaucracy. That’s what MAGA is about.” - Another Advisor
If you can explain how we drastically cut immigration without causing a severe recession im all ears.
Britain seems to have got itself into a bizarre economic model which requires the import of migrants on an historic scale just to keep on life support.
Other models are available, though a recession may well be required to transition. Although, isn’t the UK essentially already in recession?
Totally agree. Its unsustainable but also difficult to reverse
As far as Leon's claim that Reform now seems like a "serious" alternative:
this is ambiguous.
Yes, they are serious, insofar as a wasted vote argument can no longer be used against them.
But, intellectually, they are not serious at all. There is no thinking going on at all as to HOW they will improve UK's desperate dependence on immigration. Nor enough self-critical capacity to realise Brexit worsened the immigration situation.
This is true of course, and a good reason for not supporting them. But the issue is wider. I have no idea what intellectually underpins the Tories; and the reasonable assumption that Labour's Ming vase strategy concealed an intellectually and practically stunning plan has proved wide of the mark now that we are over 10% of the way through this government.
BTW Brexit has not worsened the migration issue. The state issues visas for migrants. Legal migration is 100% a state decision. This was not so before Brexit.
RFK JR: Listen, I know people, including members of my family, who've had a much worse time getting off of SSRIs than they did, than people have getting off heroin
As far as Leon's claim that Reform now seems like a "serious" alternative:
this is ambiguous.
Yes, they are serious, insofar as a wasted vote argument can no longer be used against them.
But, intellectually, they are not serious at all. There is no thinking going on at all as to HOW they will improve UK's desperate dependence on immigration. Nor enough self-critical capacity to realise Brexit worsened the immigration situation.
This is true of course, and a good reason for not supporting them. But the issue is wider. I have no idea what intellectually underpins the Tories; and the reasonable assumption that Labour's Ming vase strategy concealed an intellectually and practically stunning plan has proved wide of the mark now that we are over 10% of the way through this government.
BTW Brexit has not worsened the migration issue. The state issues visas for migrants. Legal migration is 100% a state decision. This was not so before Brexit.
Brexit caused Boris and the Treasury to open the floodgates on migrants to stave off its economic impact and to compensate for the loss of EU migrants.
They were, perhaps, only supposed to blow the bloody doors off, but the UK now finds itself teetering on a cliff-edge.
If a paradigm has shifted, it’s the fall of the free trade pro business conservative centre right replaced by the nationalist, protectionist “fuck business” populist right.
Yes, I think that's correct
Britain has enjoyed or endured spectacular levels of immigration in the last 10-20 years. We are constantly assured this contributes to growth. Yet, as @Sandpit shows, the reality is that GDP per capita has not grown at all even as our population has exploded by many millions, putting pressure on everything - from sewage systems to landscapes, from education to health. Meanwhile our cities crumble and we have very real and unpleasant social problems stemming from the migration
Now we are told "another 5 million must come in the next ten years". Why? What the fuck? We don't want any more. Polls show that voters - by almost 2 to 1 - would rather have LESS immigration EVEN IF IT COMES AT THE EXPENSE OF GROWTH
No one buys the "growth" shit any more, and even if they do, they are past caring
I think that's true. There are exceptions for very highly motivated or wealthy individuals, but generally per capita growth does not generally come from opening the floodgates to unskilled or semi-skilled immigration - it comes from low taxes, low but efficient government spending and light but effective regulation.
In short the exact opposite of the route we've been following for more than twenty years.
Yes. And the public has finally woken up to this reality. Hence the paradigm shift
Here's a good thought experiment - imagine a scenario where we get a Reform/Tory government next time out and they get serious about immigration, not only do we pause inwards migration from people with income under £50-60k we also pause visa renewals and revoke visas for immigrants who earn under £35k. This results in net emigration of 300-400k per year as low wage workers and their dependents are forced to leave the country. It will result in overall growth falling due to falling aggregate demand from those 400k leaving but per capita GDP will rise as there's 400k fewer low and no wage people in the country.
We may have headlines showing the country in recession or zero growth but people will feel better off because within a few years of such action there will be a couple of million fewer people relying on the state for welfare for their dependents (education for many kids, NHS care for families, in some insane cases housing benefits) while removing net negative tax contributions from them.
In a falling or stagnating economy, we can achieve pretty strong net growth in per capita GDP if the government halts low wage immigration and revokes visa status for low wage migrants already in the country. It is within our power to fix this and send these people home unless they have a significant contribution to the tax base of the country which we know only starts at about £45k.
That's entirely true, but it would be enormously disruptive and the market wage for shelf stackers and social care workers would rocket. The NHS in particular would come under huge funding pressure, particularly as it already suffers from Baumol's cost disease. And if you thought the reaction to employer NICs was bad....
But we would finally fix our unusually bad problem with (relative) in-work poverty. PB doesn't like relative measures, but it's really important here for making work at the bottom of the labour market pay for a half decent lifestyle, with median wages the price setter for stuff like eating out.
So it would need to be brought in very gradually. In the long term, it must be accompanied with something that makes having children very attractive - income tax break allowances, council tax exemptions, stamp duty abolished etc. Otherwise the dependency ratio - which isn't too bad with current immigration levels - would spiral out of control.
It would be a wealth shift from the old to the young and from property owners to workers.
I think some such wealth transfers are necessary for a stable society.
Meanwhile here in the U.K. the Committee scrutinising the AD Bill has been hearing evidence, some of it quite extraordinary, including the claim from one that assisting someone to die was a form of suicide prevention. Yet not a peep about it on here, AFAICS.
We also learnt this week that a British hostage held by Hamas and released a few days ago was held for a while in an UNRWA facility, the same UNRWA to which the British government is paying money.
What happens to US Federal employees is interesting. But it is not more interesting than how Parliament and the government approaches its obligations to citizens here.
The more I watch politics the more I'm reminded of Camus's quote:
"Mistaken ideas always end in bloodshed but in every case it is someone else's blood.That is why some of our thinkers feel free to say just about anything."
I apologise for the mental image about to afflict you, nonetheless I have belatedly realised that one of life’s greatest yet simplest pleasures is: sitting on the balcony in your pants on a warm Saturday evening
RFK Jr. calls out Bernie Sanders direct to his face!
"Bernie, you have accepted millions of dollars from the Pharmaceutical industry. In 2020 you were the single largest receiver of Pharmaceutical dollars. $1.5M"
Indeed, Le Pen is favourite to be the next President.
Worth adding that the Front National - as it then was - began making inroads several decades ago amongst WWC former Socialist and Communist voters.
This is one of main reasons why the French socialist party is now a shadow of its former self. The same could happen here to Labour.
I posted a few days ago that in Scotland at least, the net movement was from Labour to Reform. However I think we told I was naive.
Net movement in GB is Labour to Reform however much that is complicated by churn. Tories are flat - which is disastrous for them - while Labour plummet. Overall LD and Greens are flat too. This is no guide to next week or next year, but the trajectory as of now is clear, and Reform have no route to success which does not go through Labour territory.
If a paradigm has shifted, it’s the fall of the free trade pro business conservative centre right replaced by the nationalist, protectionist “fuck business” populist right.
Yes, I think that's correct
Britain has enjoyed or endured spectacular levels of immigration in the last 10-20 years. We are constantly assured this contributes to growth. Yet, as @Sandpit shows, the reality is that GDP per capita has not grown at all even as our population has exploded by many millions, putting pressure on everything - from sewage systems to landscapes, from education to health. Meanwhile our cities crumble and we have very real and unpleasant social problems stemming from the migration
Now we are told "another 5 million must come in the next ten years". Why? What the fuck? We don't want any more. Polls show that voters - by almost 2 to 1 - would rather have LESS immigration EVEN IF IT COMES AT THE EXPENSE OF GROWTH
No one buys the "growth" shit any more, and even if they do, they are past caring
I think that's true. There are exceptions for very highly motivated or wealthy individuals, but generally per capita growth does not generally come from opening the floodgates to unskilled or semi-skilled immigration - it comes from low taxes, low but efficient government spending and light but effective regulation.
In short the exact opposite of the route we've been following for more than twenty years.
Yes. And the public has finally woken up to this reality. Hence the paradigm shift
Here's a good thought experiment - imagine a scenario where we get a Reform/Tory government next time out and they get serious about immigration, not only do we pause inwards migration from people with income under £50-60k we also pause visa renewals and revoke visas for immigrants who earn under £35k. This results in net emigration of 300-400k per year as low wage workers and their dependents are forced to leave the country. It will result in overall growth falling due to falling aggregate demand from those 400k leaving but per capita GDP will rise as there's 400k fewer low and no wage people in the country.
We may have headlines showing the country in recession or zero growth but people will feel better off because within a few years of such action there will be a couple of million fewer people relying on the state for welfare for their dependents (education for many kids, NHS care for families, in some insane cases housing benefits) while removing net negative tax contributions from them.
In a falling or stagnating economy, we can achieve pretty strong net growth in per capita GDP if the government halts low wage immigration and revokes visa status for low wage migrants already in the country. It is within our power to fix this and send these people home unless they have a significant contribution to the tax base of the country which we know only starts at about £45k.
This sounds lovely in principle, but there are good reasons why it is very problematic for politicians in practice:
1. The already stretched and inadequate social care sector relies on imported low wage labour. You want the disabled and our vast and growing numbers of decrepit elderly looking after properly, absent those staff? You have to jack wages up enough to tempt supermarket workers and the like to move out of minimum wage roles and retrain. That's going to be very expensive. 2. The same goes double for the Health Service. £45K is below the starting wage for a doctor, let alone a nurse. If we stop importing anyone other than high wage earners who's going to give all that care? 3. You end immigration, the dependency ratio of the population deteriorates even more rapidly, and that makes the need to do really unpopular things like stripping the gold plate off the state pension and taxing assets, including houses, properly even more pressing. Our economic prospects would be considerably better if retirement provision were less generous and wealthy pensioners were properly rinsed to pay for their own upkeep, but selling a future in which current retirees get smaller pensions and land value tax bills, whilst future ones are told they must work to 75 to get their state handout, is a challenging sell.
Population growth is, ultimately, a Ponzi scheme, and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. They're also lying if they tell you it will be painless to put a stop to - and the longer the country waits to do it, the more painful it will become. It's small wonder that nobody has dared to try, and it'll be fascinating to see what happens if they ever do.
The are ways to avoid it becoming a Ponzi scheme. Two in particular spring to mind.
1. Short-term renewable visas that confer no right to remain on expiry.
2. BUILD MILLIONS MORE F*****G HOUSES!!!
Visa systems are all well and good for seasonal agricultural workers and blokes labouring on big construction projects. For desperately needed permanent staff, in a variety of sectors such as housebuilding as well as health and social care, not so much.
Solving the immigration problem is doable, but it requires more time, money and painful adjustment than the electorate is, perhaps, willing to tolerate. We need more automation of low wage tasks, for people in those tasks to be restrained to fill all those gaps in other sectors AND, critically, for them to be paid better, for wealthy people and especially wealthy retirees to contribute more to pay the costs of remodeling the economy, and for our entire model of retirement to change so that the cliff edge is replaced by a continuation of part time work into people's seventies. There also needs to be a drive to get people fitter and healthier, which I'm afraid will entail nannying interventions to both enable and cajole people into adopting healthier diets.
Fundamentally, the country is old, fat and knackered, and it's getting worse by the year. Mass immigration is a sticking plaster solution to underlying structural decay. Putting things to rights will not be quick or easy.
If a paradigm has shifted, it’s the fall of the free trade pro business conservative centre right replaced by the nationalist, protectionist “fuck business” populist right.
Yes, I think that's correct
Britain has enjoyed or endured spectacular levels of immigration in the last 10-20 years. We are constantly assured this contributes to growth. Yet, as @Sandpit shows, the reality is that GDP per capita has not grown at all even as our population has exploded by many millions, putting pressure on everything - from sewage systems to landscapes, from education to health. Meanwhile our cities crumble and we have very real and unpleasant social problems stemming from the migration
Now we are told "another 5 million must come in the next ten years". Why? What the fuck? We don't want any more. Polls show that voters - by almost 2 to 1 - would rather have LESS immigration EVEN IF IT COMES AT THE EXPENSE OF GROWTH
No one buys the "growth" shit any more, and even if they do, they are past caring
I think that's true. There are exceptions for very highly motivated or wealthy individuals, but generally per capita growth does not generally come from opening the floodgates to unskilled or semi-skilled immigration - it comes from low taxes, low but efficient government spending and light but effective regulation.
In short the exact opposite of the route we've been following for more than twenty years.
Yes. And the public has finally woken up to this reality. Hence the paradigm shift
Here's a good thought experiment - imagine a scenario where we get a Reform/Tory government next time out and they get serious about immigration, not only do we pause inwards migration from people with income under £50-60k we also pause visa renewals and revoke visas for immigrants who earn under £35k. This results in net emigration of 300-400k per year as low wage workers and their dependents are forced to leave the country. It will result in overall growth falling due to falling aggregate demand from those 400k leaving but per capita GDP will rise as there's 400k fewer low and no wage people in the country.
We may have headlines showing the country in recession or zero growth but people will feel better off because within a few years of such action there will be a couple of million fewer people relying on the state for welfare for their dependents (education for many kids, NHS care for families, in some insane cases housing benefits) while removing net negative tax contributions from them.
In a falling or stagnating economy, we can achieve pretty strong net growth in per capita GDP if the government halts low wage immigration and revokes visa status for low wage migrants already in the country. It is within our power to fix this and send these people home unless they have a significant contribution to the tax base of the country which we know only starts at about £45k.
Yes
And I sense we are about to see this experiment playing out in mainland Europe. Remigration
Do you still support unrestricted immigration from the EU ?
If so where do you think much of that remigration will head to ?
I no longer support unrestricted immigration from anywhere. I think we need effective net zero migration, and it WILL be painful, but that's what we need
Indeed we almost certainly need to go further and do what @MaxPB suggests, revoke visas, no indefinite right to remain, send people home, and so forth
So you've given up all your happy clappy crap of allowing under 30s to have unrestricted immigration from the EU ?
That’s a different question. I would allow 2 or 3 year youth mobility visas - yes. That’s not unrestricted immigration
We have versions of them with several countries already
RFK Jr. calls out Bernie Sanders direct to his face!
"Bernie, you have accepted millions of dollars from the Pharmaceutical industry. In 2020 you were the single largest receiver of Pharmaceutical dollars. $1.5M"
I apologise for the mental image about to afflict you, nonetheless I have belatedly realised that one of life’s greatest yet simplest pleasures is: sitting on the balcony in your pants on a warm Saturday evening
In February
Well I am sitting outside on my terrace in sunshine on a Saturday morning in the Lake District. Rather more elegantly dressed.
I am about to start a new book.
Reading outside: one of life's greatest pleasures.
If a paradigm has shifted, it’s the fall of the free trade pro business conservative centre right replaced by the nationalist, protectionist “fuck business” populist right.
Yes, I think that's correct
Britain has enjoyed or endured spectacular levels of immigration in the last 10-20 years. We are constantly assured this contributes to growth. Yet, as @Sandpit shows, the reality is that GDP per capita has not grown at all even as our population has exploded by many millions, putting pressure on everything - from sewage systems to landscapes, from education to health. Meanwhile our cities crumble and we have very real and unpleasant social problems stemming from the migration
Now we are told "another 5 million must come in the next ten years". Why? What the fuck? We don't want any more. Polls show that voters - by almost 2 to 1 - would rather have LESS immigration EVEN IF IT COMES AT THE EXPENSE OF GROWTH
No one buys the "growth" shit any more, and even if they do, they are past caring
I think that's true. There are exceptions for very highly motivated or wealthy individuals, but generally per capita growth does not generally come from opening the floodgates to unskilled or semi-skilled immigration - it comes from low taxes, low but efficient government spending and light but effective regulation.
In short the exact opposite of the route we've been following for more than twenty years.
Yes. And the public has finally woken up to this reality. Hence the paradigm shift
Here's a good thought experiment - imagine a scenario where we get a Reform/Tory government next time out and they get serious about immigration, not only do we pause inwards migration from people with income under £50-60k we also pause visa renewals and revoke visas for immigrants who earn under £35k. This results in net emigration of 300-400k per year as low wage workers and their dependents are forced to leave the country. It will result in overall growth falling due to falling aggregate demand from those 400k leaving but per capita GDP will rise as there's 400k fewer low and no wage people in the country.
We may have headlines showing the country in recession or zero growth but people will feel better off because within a few years of such action there will be a couple of million fewer people relying on the state for welfare for their dependents (education for many kids, NHS care for families, in some insane cases housing benefits) while removing net negative tax contributions from them.
In a falling or stagnating economy, we can achieve pretty strong net growth in per capita GDP if the government halts low wage immigration and revokes visa status for low wage migrants already in the country. It is within our power to fix this and send these people home unless they have a significant contribution to the tax base of the country which we know only starts at about £45k.
This sounds lovely in principle, but there are good reasons why it is very problematic for politicians in practice:
1. The already stretched and inadequate social care sector relies on imported low wage labour. You want the disabled and our vast and growing numbers of decrepit elderly looking after properly, absent those staff? You have to jack wages up enough to tempt supermarket workers and the like to move out of minimum wage roles and retrain. That's going to be very expensive. 2. The same goes double for the Health Service. £45K is below the starting wage for a doctor, let alone a nurse. If we stop importing anyone other than high wage earners who's going to give all that care? 3. You end immigration, the dependency ratio of the population deteriorates even more rapidly, and that makes the need to do really unpopular things like stripping the gold plate off the state pension and taxing assets, including houses, properly even more pressing. Our economic prospects would be considerably better if retirement provision were less generous and wealthy pensioners were properly rinsed to pay for their own upkeep, but selling a future in which current retirees get smaller pensions and land value tax bills, whilst future ones are told they must work to 75 to get their state handout, is a challenging sell.
Population growth is, ultimately, a Ponzi scheme, and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. They're also lying if they tell you it will be painless to put a stop to - and the longer the country waits to do it, the more painful it will become. It's small wonder that nobody has dared to try, and it'll be fascinating to see what happens if they ever do.
The are ways to avoid it becoming a Ponzi scheme. Two in particular spring to mind.
1. Short-term renewable visas that confer no right to remain on expiry.
2. BUILD MILLIONS MORE F*****G HOUSES!!!
Visa systems are all well and good for seasonal agricultural workers and blokes labouring on big construction projects. For desperately needed permanent staff, in a variety of sectors such as housebuilding as well as health and social care, not so much.
Solving the immigration problem is doable, but it requires more time, money and painful adjustment than the electorate is, perhaps, willing to tolerate. We need more automation of low wage tasks, for people in those tasks to be restrained to fill all those gaps in other sectors AND, critically, for them to be paid better, for wealthy people and especially wealthy retirees to contribute more to pay the costs of remodeling the economy, and for our entire model of retirement to change so that the cliff edge is replaced by a continuation of part time work into people's seventies. There also needs to be a drive to get people fitter and healthier, which I'm afraid will entail nannying interventions to both enable and cajole people into adopting healthier diets.
Fundamentally, the country is old, fat and knackered, and it's getting worse by the year. Mass immigration is a sticking plaster solution to underlying structural decay. Putting things to rights will not be quick or easy.
Agreed. But dont ask the boomers for more money lol. They earned it.
Reform doesn’t even have a Treasury spokesman. They are essentially a cult.
Reform are a presidential campaign in a parliamentary system.
If (big if) the current trend continues then a multitude of troops of all abilities will join them to turn it into a real movement. Indicators will be defections, the populist media, individual big cheeses, corporate Britain. and unlike with Trump's new best friends you are not very obviously signing up to a 1930s German agenda, but only a 1950s fairly centrist one. (I don't support them).
RFK Jr. calls out Bernie Sanders direct to his face!
"Bernie, you have accepted millions of dollars from the Pharmaceutical industry. In 2020 you were the single largest receiver of Pharmaceutical dollars. $1.5M"
Comments
I think what we are seeing is two parties at bedrock (Labour and Tory) and Reform picking up a large NOTA vote.
Unless things change I suspect we will end up with a low turnout election with a relatively high Reform vote but a very low conversion rate to seats as they fail to break through.
What does that mean for the next government. It’s very simple. In technical terms, fuck knows
£2bn in military aid and funds for local arms production facilities in Ukraine, from the UK government according the Ukranian MoD.
https://x.com/defenceu/status/1885264500821037464
That has happened is that Labour has disappointed, but people are not willing to give the Tories a chance yet. The Lib Dems and Greens have their niche but no wider relevance.
So we have seen a move of soft Labour to WNV and Reform. It’s not particularly Kemi’s fault.
We may have headlines showing the country in recession or zero growth but people will feel better off because within a few years of such action there will be a couple of million fewer people relying on the state for welfare for their dependents (education for many kids, NHS care for families, in some insane cases housing benefits) while removing net negative tax contributions from them.
In a falling or stagnating economy, we can achieve pretty strong net growth in per capita GDP if the government halts low wage immigration and revokes visa status for low wage migrants already in the country. It is within our power to fix this and send these people home unless they have a significant contribution to the tax base of the country which we know only starts at about £45k.
The difference is way back in summer 2024 Reform did not, quite, seem like a serious party and a serious alternative
Now they do, which is why they are leading in some polls. Reform are in a sweet spot where, the higher they poll, the higher they WILL poll, as voters flock to them, suddenly seeing them as a proper potential Opposition (with genuine desires to crush immigration)
What is their ceiling? Farage has around 34% approval, so it is at least that. A few more points and they are in overall majority territory
Of course, it may all go the other way. Farage has a heart attack, one of their MPs shags a hummingbird on live
TV, Lee Anderson grows a Hitler tache and starts shouting "Schnell!", much could go wrong, very easily
They are particularly dependent on Farage, and he's now in his 60s. They need to be cultivating a new young generation, as Le Pen has done with Bardella
President Trump’s the Deep State BLOODBATH in the past 24 hours:
- All federal prosecutors handling January 6th cases fired, computers locked and marched out of their offices by security.
- David Sundberg, the FBI Assistant Director at the helm of the January 6th investigations, has been fired.
- 20 leaders of FBI field offices have been escorted out of FBI buildings around the country
- The 51 intelligence officers who spread misinformation about Hunter Biden's laptop and interfered in elections are now banned from entering federal properties.
- Federal employees are now required to return to the office, with non-compliance leading to termination.
- John Bolton and John Brennan have been permanently banned from government buildings.
- Jarold Harold Rogers has been indicted for compromising U.S. trade secrets to China
- Ban on all use of pronouns in government communications
- All 2 million Feds sent a resignation offer
This purge marks the beginning of the end for the corrupt tyrants in Washington.
11 days in and the swamp has been drained.
https://x.com/bennyjohnson/status/1885480751938081114
These migrants that don’t go to the SW or the Lake District - who are the people who serve me food when I visit? Aliens from Zarb?
And I sense we are about to see this experiment playing out in mainland Europe. Remigration
looking like as of now only
@SenMcConnell
is voting against
@RobertKennedyJr
, which means Kennedy will be confirmed.
It is also looking like
@TulsiGabbard
will only lose 2 republican votes securing her nomination as well.
& according to Senator
@tedcruz
,
@Kash_Patel
has the numbers to be confirmed as the next Director of the FBI.
https://x.com/BryceMLipscomb/status/1885393780523606095
Probably not, but we can never really know.
Well, ‘as hard as he can,’ anyway.
What effect do the people responsible for the measure feel will be of benefit to the wider population?
Brevity and clarity?
https://vm.tiktok.com/ZGdDQA5uq/
One small example, should we really now believe air safety investigations? Another - will anyone really care about the ~5,000 transgender military personnel set to lose their jobs?
Tariffs announced overnight are set to cost the average American household roughly $2,000 per annum.
Farage is wily enough not to have a remotely viable succession plan in place and avoid all this scheming.
1. The already stretched and inadequate social care sector relies on imported low wage labour. You want the disabled and our vast and growing numbers of decrepit elderly looking after properly, absent those staff? You have to jack wages up enough to tempt supermarket workers and the like to move out of minimum wage roles and retrain. That's going to be very expensive.
2. The same goes double for the Health Service. £45K is below the starting wage for a doctor, let alone a nurse. If we stop importing anyone other than high wage earners who's going to give all that care?
3. You end immigration, the dependency ratio of the population deteriorates even more rapidly, and that makes the need to do really unpopular things like stripping the gold plate off the state pension and taxing assets, including houses, properly even more pressing. Our economic prospects would be considerably better if retirement provision were less generous and wealthy pensioners were properly rinsed to pay for their own upkeep, but selling a future in which current retirees get smaller pensions and land value tax bills, whilst future ones are told they must work to 75 to get their state handout, is a challenging sell.
Population growth is, ultimately, a Ponzi scheme, and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. They're also lying if they tell you it will be painless to put a stop to - and the longer the country waits to do it, the more painful it will become. It's small wonder that nobody has dared to try, and it'll be fascinating to see what happens if they ever do.
Those decades of experience have given Le Pen herself credibility, nous and wide contacts to policy intellectuals. She also has a coterie of decent political advisers to help her.
Farage lacks that institutional backing and so is likely to make policy and political mistakes. These are the vulnerabilites of a "one-man band".
Reform, for example, persist in "Thatcherite" economics, which yet are unpopular with their core WWC voters.
Le Pen is far more likely to be next President, than Farage EVER to be PM.
View keyboard shortcuts
Post
See new posts
Conversation
You reposted
George
@BehizyTweets
Insiders have revealed that President Trump is prepared to go scorched-earth against any Republican Senators who vote against the confirmations of Tulsi Gabbard and RFK Jr.
"If they try to touch Tulsi and Kennedy, then it’s war.” - Trump Advisor
"If Tulsi or Bobby face real trouble, that’s when Trump will really start to fight. They represent the challenging of the status quo of the bureaucracy. That’s what MAGA is about.” - Another Advisor
https://x.com/BehizyTweets/status/1885124042266402974
I've just watched a 3 minute video from my football club with this stuff plastered all over it. On the pitch they are awful. Off the pitch, the stadium is crumbling apart, millions in debt, can't pay the tax they owe, can't pay the ambulances that are required, force the mandatory required ball boys/girls to buy their own refreshment. Yet can still spend the time and money on this stuff.
There is no benefit to the wider population forcing people to put pronoun bollox onto everything. It's not 2018 any more.
'We don't just teach - we clothe the kids, feed them and brush their teeth'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr7e09471lyo
A report on a school in Boston, Lincolnshire.
St Nicholas is in one of the most deprived parts of Lincolnshire. There are high levels of migration - 71 children moved in and out of the school during the last academic year - and for nearly 70% of the children, English is not their first language.
Mrs Booth has already taken a call this morning about three vulnerable children who are missing - they've not been to school for weeks and all have tuberculosis, an infectious lung disease which can be serious if not treated.
"We think the family are in Europe," says Mrs Booth. "We're fairly sure they were fleeing from debt."
A textbook example of how immigration has made a place poorer.
1. Short-term renewable visas that confer no right to remain on expiry.
2. BUILD MILLIONS MORE F*****G HOUSES!!!
*Banned* is going to find *banned" difficult to talk about colleagues if *banned* is not allowed to use pronouns any more.
If so where do you think much of that remigration will head to ?
Someone has spilt Stolichnaya on the laptop
Worth adding that the Front National - as it then was - began making inroads several decades ago amongst WWC former Socialist and Communist voters.
This is one of main reasons why the French socialist party is now a shadow of its former self. The same could happen here to Labour.
On many jobs, especially on non-greenfield sites, you need a digger driver *and* a spotter outside whilst digging. Whilst in the cab of even a small machine such as a 3CX, you cannot see what your bucket has just uncovered very well, so someone standing outside can get a different angle and see the pipe or cable that you're about to hit.
The same with surveyors: you used to need at least two people to survey (and preferably three): one to operate the level or theodolite, and one to hold the staff at the point you are measuring - the third might be there to generally help or record the data. Nowadays, laser levels can be operated by just one person: they setup the base station laser, then walk the staff around the points to be measured. Except often they will use two, or even three, people, for a host of reasons: not least are members of the public interfering with the kit and ruining a few hours of work.
Automation and mechanisation can save a lot of labour, but not as much as you might at first think.
But we would finally fix our unusually bad problem with (relative) in-work poverty. PB doesn't like relative measures, but it's really important here for making work at the bottom of the labour market pay for a half decent lifestyle, with median wages the price setter for stuff like eating out.
So it would need to be brought in very gradually. In the long term, it must be accompanied with something that makes having children very attractive - income tax break allowances, council tax exemptions, stamp duty abolished etc. Otherwise the dependency ratio - which isn't too bad with current immigration levels - would spiral out of control.
One or two polls also suggest the Tories and Reform combined are not far off a majority either so still all to play for
They chose the children.
In spite of the order, they will keep their facilities open for as long as they can, according to three people with direct knowledge of the situation. The people requested anonymity for fear that the administration might target their group for reprisals. Trump’s order also meant they would stop receiving new, previously approved funds to cover salaries, IV bags and other supplies. They said it’s a matter of days, not weeks, before they run out.
American-funded aid organizations around the globe, charged with providing lifesaving care for the most desperate and vulnerable populations imaginable, have for days been forced to completely halt their operations, turn away patients and lay off staff following a series of sudden stop-work demands from the Trump administration. Despite an announcement earlier this week ostensibly allowing lifesaving operations to continue, those earlier orders have not been rescinded.
https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-state-department-usaid-humanitarian-aid-freeze-ukraine-gaza-sudan
Indeed we almost certainly need to go further and do what @MaxPB suggests, revoke visas, no indefinite right to remain, send people home, and so forth
RFK JR: Listen, I know people, including members of my family, who've had a much worse time getting off of SSRIs than they did, than people have getting off heroin
https://x.com/Acyn/status/1884665539357995450
Other models are available, though a recession may well be required to transition. Although, isn’t the UK essentially already in recession?
this is ambiguous.
Yes, they are serious, insofar as a wasted vote argument can no longer be used against them.
But, intellectually, they are not serious at all. There is no thinking going on at all as to HOW they will improve UK's desperate dependence on immigration. Nor enough self-critical capacity to realise Brexit worsened the immigration situation.
They don’t just “advocate” for the industry; they prop it up, protect it, and silence anyone who dares to challenge it. Truth, ethics, and even your health are expendable when profits and control are on the line.
They want you sick, dependent, and uninformed.
https://x.com/BusyDrT/status/1885090991532892283
Or is the pain for other people?
They are essentially a cult.
https://x.com/SigersonBell/status/1884719751642914990
67% of people said they would not consider voting Labour, compared to 62% said they would not vote Conservative.
29% (who didn't select Con) said they would consider voting for them, but only 24% (who didn't select Lab) said they would consider voting for them. Reform figures were not as good as Con.
Kemi is doing better than Starmer in leader polls. Cons are more trusted on economy.
Confidence in economy, Kemi wins hands down against Starmer and Farage.
People are not willing yet to hand Conservatives their vote, but according to the poll detail, it's clear that they are still in the race.
Events dear boy. Events.
Oh and good morning PB.
View keyboard shortcuts
Post
Good morning!
BTW Brexit has not worsened the migration issue. The state issues visas for migrants. Legal migration is 100% a state decision. This was not so before Brexit.
They were, perhaps, only supposed to blow the bloody doors off, but the UK now finds itself teetering on a cliff-edge.
I think some such wealth transfers are necessary for a stable society.
How much is up for debate.
We also learnt this week that a British hostage held by Hamas and released a few days ago was held for a while in an UNRWA facility, the same UNRWA to which the British government is paying money.
What happens to US Federal employees is interesting. But it is not more interesting than how Parliament and the government approaches its obligations to citizens here.
The more I watch politics the more I'm reminded of Camus's quote:
"Mistaken ideas always end in bloodshed but in every case it is someone else's blood.That is why some of our thinkers feel free to say just about anything."
In February
"Bernie, you have accepted millions of dollars from the Pharmaceutical industry. In 2020 you were the single largest receiver of Pharmaceutical dollars. $1.5M"
The crowd erupts in applause! LFG
https://x.com/AutismCapital/status/1885027425714921576
I would make Philippe, Macron's centre right former PM, narrow favourite to beat Melenchon and Le Pen though
Solving the immigration problem is doable, but it requires more time, money and painful adjustment than the electorate is, perhaps, willing to tolerate. We need more automation of low wage tasks, for people in those tasks to be restrained to fill all those gaps in other sectors AND, critically, for them to be paid better, for wealthy people and especially wealthy retirees to contribute more to pay the costs of remodeling the economy, and for our entire model of retirement to change so that the cliff edge is replaced by a continuation of part time work into people's seventies. There also needs to be a drive to get people fitter and healthier, which I'm afraid will entail nannying interventions to both enable and cajole people into adopting healthier diets.
Fundamentally, the country is old, fat and knackered, and it's getting worse by the year. Mass immigration is a sticking plaster solution to underlying structural decay. Putting things to rights will not be quick or easy.
As you will know, some Melenchon voters will break in the second round
for Le Pen and vice versa.
Le Rassemblement National has many left-leaning socio-economic policies.
We have versions of them with several countries already
https://www.yahoo.com/news/fact-check-rfk-jr-misrepresented-002800073.html
Well I am sitting outside on my terrace in sunshine on a Saturday morning in the Lake District. Rather more elegantly dressed.
I am about to start a new book.
Reading outside: one of life's greatest pleasures.