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.
Did a poster really just compare America under Biden with East Germany under Krenz?
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"
Maybe for you. The real reality is that Sanders got zero contributions from the pharmaceutical industry, and RFK, like his boss, is a shameless lying piece of shit.
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."
Have been following your comments on X (Twitter) on the AD Bill. Very good indeed, it’s one of the most astonishing pieces of legislation in my lifetime in that it’s being rammed through with no opposite voices seemingly allowed to speak at all.
Is the Private Member’s Bill process being abused here, by government forces who are trying to use a different process with less public scrutiny than would be the case for a government Bill?
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.
Did a poster really just compare America under Biden with East Germany under Krenz?
I mean - WTAFF?
either top trolling or williamglenn is a genuine fascist.
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
For someone who likes to give the impression of being educated and intelligent you are astonishingly thick. Still I suppose when your pointless brand of journalism is replaced by Google maps and AI combined, you can be sure you will be able to find a job working at minimum wage in a care 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.
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
For someone who likes to give the impression of being educated and intelligent you are astonishingly thick. Still I suppose when your pointless brand of journalism is replaced by Google maps and AI combined, you can be sure you will be able to find a job working at minimum wage in a care home.
This from someone who supports dei just so his posh thick daughter can get an undeserved high flying job.
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.
Did a poster really just compare America under Biden with East Germany under Krenz?
I mean - WTAFF?
either top trolling or williamglenn is a genuine fascist.
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
If there's one pattern we should have learnt by now is that immigration always turns out to be higher than predicted and that the immigrants aren't necessarily the ones you expected.
If we're weak enough to give a 'youth mobility visa' we'll get more immigrants than predicted, lower skilled immigrants than predicted and more dependents than predicted.
The only thing lower than predicted will be the number who leave after their visa expires.
Exclusive: Musk aides lock government workers out of computer systems at US agency, sources say
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/musk-aides-lock-government-workers-out-computer-systems-us-agency-sources-say-2025-01-31/ WASHINGTON, Jan 31 (Reuters) - Aides to Elon Musk charged with running the U.S. government human resources agency have locked career civil servants out of computer systems that contain the personal data of millions of federal employees, according to two agency officials. Since taking office 11 days ago, President Donald Trump has embarked on a massive government makeover, firing and sidelining hundreds of civil servants in his first steps toward downsizing the bureaucracy and installing more loyalists..
.. The systems include a vast database called Enterprise Human Resources Integration, which contains dates of birth, Social Security numbers, appraisals, home addresses, pay grades and length of service of government workers, the officials said. "We have no visibility into what they are doing with the computer and data systems," one of the officials said. "That is creating great concern. There is no oversight. It creates real cybersecurity and hacking implications….
Equally concerning is that those they are giving access to are not security cleared.
Putin and Xi will love it.
We had this back in November when Chump refused to let his transition team be checked - as required - by the FBI.
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 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
For someone who likes to give the impression of being educated and intelligent you are astonishingly thick. Still I suppose when your pointless brand of journalism is replaced by Google maps and AI combined, you can be sure you will be able to find a job working at minimum wage in a care home.
This from someone who supports dei just so his posh thick daughter can get an undeserved high flying job.
I think Leon’s actually against it, and from all I know of her his daughter isn’t thick.
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
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 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
For someone who likes to give the impression of being educated and intelligent you are astonishingly thick. Still I suppose when your pointless brand of journalism is replaced by Google maps and AI combined, you can be sure you will be able to find a job working at minimum wage in a care home.
This from someone who supports dei just so his posh thick daughter can get an undeserved high flying job.
I think Leon’s actually against it, and from all I know of her his daughter isn’t thick.
Which is why hes against it. His daughter will rise on merit.
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.
A very moving example of the work of a CoE primary school. But the BBC story as a whole lacked any sort of account of why a school and community in one of England's great historic towns, and just 7 miles from Algarkirk, is how it is, what are the reasons, and how it can be politically justified.
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
For someone who likes to give the impression of being educated and intelligent you are astonishingly thick. Still I suppose when your pointless brand of journalism is replaced by Google maps and AI combined, you can be sure you will be able to find a job working at minimum wage in a care home.
This from someone who supports dei just so his posh thick daughter can get an undeserved high flying job.
I think Leon’s actually against it, and from all I know of her his daughter isn’t thick.
DaughterS plural. And both very clever
Also, one is on an I’m-in-love gap year and the other is at a prestigious UK university, neither has a “job”
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?
I did, click the “show previous quotes” button to see more.
I was wondering in which contituency you live, who’s your MP, and why the NIMBYs are a particular problem in your area? What are the projects they’re particularly screwed up?
Exclusive: Musk aides lock government workers out of computer systems at US agency, sources say
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/musk-aides-lock-government-workers-out-computer-systems-us-agency-sources-say-2025-01-31/ WASHINGTON, Jan 31 (Reuters) - Aides to Elon Musk charged with running the U.S. government human resources agency have locked career civil servants out of computer systems that contain the personal data of millions of federal employees, according to two agency officials. Since taking office 11 days ago, President Donald Trump has embarked on a massive government makeover, firing and sidelining hundreds of civil servants in his first steps toward downsizing the bureaucracy and installing more loyalists..
.. The systems include a vast database called Enterprise Human Resources Integration, which contains dates of birth, Social Security numbers, appraisals, home addresses, pay grades and length of service of government workers, the officials said. "We have no visibility into what they are doing with the computer and data systems," one of the officials said. "That is creating great concern. There is no oversight. It creates real cybersecurity and hacking implications….
Equally concerning is that those they are giving access to are not security cleared.
Putin and Xi will love it.
We had this back in November when Chump refused to let his transition team be checked - as required - by the FBI.
Sadly the old order is disintegrating now. The era of strong men has arrived.
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.
Xi is hit by Trump's tariffs and Putin is now considering a peace deal.
You may not like Trump's anti woke, anti free trade and anti immigration policies but he has a democratic mandate for them after winning the presidential election with that platform
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.
Would have been even poorer if the fruit, veg and flowers had gone unpicked.
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?
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
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
For someone who likes to give the impression of being educated and intelligent you are astonishingly thick. Still I suppose when your pointless brand of journalism is replaced by Google maps and AI combined, you can be sure you will be able to find a job working at minimum wage in a care home.
This from someone who supports dei just so his posh thick daughter can get an undeserved high flying job.
I think Leon’s actually against it, and from all I know of her his daughter isn’t thick.
Which is why hes against it. His daughter will rise on merit.
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
For someone who likes to give the impression of being educated and intelligent you are astonishingly thick. Still I suppose when your pointless brand of journalism is replaced by Google maps and AI combined, you can be sure you will be able to find a job working at minimum wage in a care home.
This from someone who supports dei just so his posh thick daughter can get an undeserved high flying job.
I think Leon’s actually against it, and from all I know of her his daughter isn’t thick.
Which is why hes against it. His daughter will rise on merit.
So why did you say he supports it?
I didnt. I was talking to nigel foremain who supports it.
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
There may be other things, but from November 2024, the new government had had four months to command the narrative and dismally failed, the Tories appointed Badenoch who so far has not done well, boats and migration figures have not helped Labour, nor have tax rises. Also does Trump's election make a difference, legitimating Reform's rather populist tone?
That depends on how much of a mess he makes. (Or, just possibly, doesn’t.)
Yes, but this is about this moment. Trump's position is in one respect like Reform's: the other ways of working have not very well have they?
That's not quite right. Biden's ways *had* worked well; we don't need to rehearse the numbers.
The issue was inside the head of Trump voters - who swallowed and internalised the BS.
Some Reform supporters will possibly do *that*.
It's more about communication. And we do not yet know, despite the constant wailing, how well this Govt will do.
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 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
For someone who likes to give the impression of being educated and intelligent you are astonishingly thick. Still I suppose when your pointless brand of journalism is replaced by Google maps and AI combined, you can be sure you will be able to find a job working at minimum wage in a care home.
This from someone who supports dei just so his posh thick daughter can get an undeserved high flying job.
I think Leon’s actually against it, and from all I know of her his daughter isn’t thick.
Which is why hes against it. His daughter will rise on merit.
So why did you say he supports it?
I didnt. I was talking to nigel foremain who supports it.
Your grammar failed you then, as you ended up using pronouns that identified the wrong subject.
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
For someone who likes to give the impression of being educated and intelligent you are astonishingly thick. Still I suppose when your pointless brand of journalism is replaced by Google maps and AI combined, you can be sure you will be able to find a job working at minimum wage in a care home.
This from someone who supports dei just so his posh thick daughter can get an undeserved high flying job.
I think Leon’s actually against it, and from all I know of her his daughter isn’t thick.
Which is why hes against it. His daughter will rise on merit.
So why did you say he supports it?
I didnt. I was talking to nigel foremain who supports it.
Your grammar failed you then, as you ended up using pronouns that identified the wrong subject.
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 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
For someone who likes to give the impression of being educated and intelligent you are astonishingly thick. Still I suppose when your pointless brand of journalism is replaced by Google maps and AI combined, you can be sure you will be able to find a job working at minimum wage in a care home.
This from someone who supports dei just so his posh thick daughter can get an undeserved high flying job.
I think Leon’s actually against it, and from all I know of her his daughter isn’t thick.
Which is why hes against it. His daughter will rise on merit.
So why did you say he supports it?
I didnt. I was talking to nigel foremain who supports it.
Your grammar failed you then, as you ended up using pronouns that identified the wrong subject.
Errrr ok.
You’re welcome.
That’s tuition I normally charge £55 an hour for, and you got it for free.
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
For someone who likes to give the impression of being educated and intelligent you are astonishingly thick. Still I suppose when your pointless brand of journalism is replaced by Google maps and AI combined, you can be sure you will be able to find a job working at minimum wage in a care home.
This from someone who supports dei just so his posh thick daughter can get an undeserved high flying job.
I think Leon’s actually against it, and from all I know of her his daughter isn’t thick.
Which is why hes against it. His daughter will rise on merit.
So why did you say he supports it?
I didnt. I was talking to nigel foremain who supports it.
Your grammar failed you then, as you ended up using pronouns that identified the wrong subject.
Errrr ok.
You’re welcome.
That’s tuition I normally charge £55 an hour for, and you got it for free.
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
Has she gone back to the bar?
Isn’t the correct expression “called to the bar”?
No, I've moved on from that query. Had a couple of helpful responses.
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.
Hardly. And your last example is emigration. In London, there were complaints about schoolchildren unable to speak English in the 1980s.
Children not toilet-trained probably partly reflects earlier school starts. It used to be five, now it can be as young as three.
The interesting new problem is children unable to climb stairs. I'd not seen that before today but I suppose that if you live in a flat, you might never see stairs. Come to think of it, my infants school was all on one floor, and I think the one down the road is too.
The point is that immigration has nothing to do with poor parenting. Drugs, maybe. Single parents with no money, zonked on wine or weed, at a pinch.
One thing people never talk about is that a lot of babies are taken away from their parents as soon as they pop out. (We like to imagine forced adoption is a dark horror from the past.) Think about all those families just above that threshold.
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
For someone who likes to give the impression of being educated and intelligent you are astonishingly thick. Still I suppose when your pointless brand of journalism is replaced by Google maps and AI combined, you can be sure you will be able to find a job working at minimum wage in a care home.
This from someone who supports dei just so his posh thick daughter can get an undeserved high flying job.
I think Leon’s actually against it, and from all I know of her his daughter isn’t thick.
Which is why hes against it. His daughter will rise on merit.
So why did you say he supports it?
I didnt. I was talking to nigel foremain who supports it.
Your grammar failed you then, as you ended up using pronouns that identified the wrong subject.
Errrr ok.
You’re welcome.
That’s tuition I normally charge £55 an hour for, and you got it for free.
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
Has she gone back to the bar?
Isn’t the correct expression “called to the bar”?
Isn't the correct expression ‘one sniff of the barmaid's apron’?
emergency work, for example to protect livestock during a flood (you must tell Natural England as soon as possible afterwards) operations with permission from a public body or local authority (they must have consulted Natural England before they granted permission)"
May well be different for a NNR or Ramsar (wetland) site - but those are different, and higher, categories.
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
Has she gone back to the bar?
Isn’t the correct expression “called to the bar”?
Isn't the correct expression ‘one sniff of the barmaid's apron’?
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.
Hardly. And your last example is emigration. In London, there were complaints about schoolchildren unable to speak English in the 1980s.
Children not toilet-trained probably partly reflects earlier school starts. It used to be five, now it can be as young as three.
The interesting new problem is children unable to climb stairs. I'd not seen that before today but I suppose that if you live in a flat, you might never see stairs. Come to think of it, my infants school was all on one floor, and I think the one down the road is too.
The point is that immigration has nothing to do with poor parenting. Drugs, maybe. Single parents with no money, zonked on wine or weed, at a pinch.
One thing people never talk about is that a lot of babies are taken away from their parents as soon as they pop out. (We like to imagine forced adoption is a dark horror from the past.) Think about all those families just above that threshold.
My son had only just been toilet trained when he stated school. As a very late June birth, he was one of the youngest in his year - and a year means a great deal developmentally at that age.
Friends of ours live in a bungalow. When we first moved into our townhouse, they visited with their three year old, who spent all the time just running up and down all the stairs as he rarely encountered them and loved playing on them.
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
For someone who likes to give the impression of being educated and intelligent you are astonishingly thick. Still I suppose when your pointless brand of journalism is replaced by Google maps and AI combined, you can be sure you will be able to find a job working at minimum wage in a care home.
This from someone who supports dei just so his posh thick daughter can get an undeserved high flying job.
I think Leon’s actually against it, and from all I know of her his daughter isn’t thick.
Which is why hes against it. His daughter will rise on merit.
So why did you say he supports it?
I didnt. I was talking to nigel foremain who supports it.
Your grammar failed you then, as you ended up using pronouns that identified the wrong subject.
Errrr ok.
You’re welcome.
That’s tuition I normally charge £55 an hour for, and you got it for free.
You get my wisdom for free on here.
News to me that I have a daughter. Was that the result from when I was shagging your wife?
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?
For those who thought the ukraine war was a good idea ( most of pb including rcs)
Rubio: We deceived people into believing that Ukraine could defeat Russia
" The administration of the previous US leader, Joseph Biden, miscalculated by financing Ukraine in its conflict with Russia and somehow managed to convince people that Kiev could not only win, but also destroy Moscow. Ukraine has been set back 100 years because of the conflict, its energy system is badly damaged ," said US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
Wrt Kim Ledbetter and the Assisted Dying Bill, and @Cyclefree 's comment.
A very sharp piece from Paul Vallely, in the Church Times (you get 2 free articles so can see it). Most unlike him; he's normally the soul of discretion. There are more philosophers discussed. All the Lord Bishops will see this.
Perhaps Ms Leadbeater might align herself with the consequentialist principle of Bentham: that the rightness of an action is judged entirely by its utility; or with Mill’s dispensation, which would suggest that manipulative or coercive behaviour can be morally acceptable if it maximises the overall well-being of the general population.
Those who disagree with her view that legalising assisted suicide is for the greater good might be less charitable. They might regard her as neither a deontologist nor a consequentialist, but as a dishonest politician.
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?
For those who thought the ukraine war was a good idea ( most of pb including rcs)
Rubio: We deceived people into believing that Ukraine could defeat Russia
" The administration of the previous US leader, Joseph Biden, miscalculated by financing Ukraine in its conflict with Russia and somehow managed to convince people that Kiev could not only win, but also destroy Moscow. Ukraine has been set back 100 years because of the conflict, its energy system is badly damaged ," said US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
No, we all thought the Ukraine war was an extremely bad idea.
The only person who thought it was a good idea was Putin. So he's the one to direct your ire at.
(I think most of us thought Ukraine would be wiped out in a week. We've only changed our views because of the extraordinary tenacity they've shown, inflicting immense and possibly terminal damage on Russia, which would be funny if the cost the Ukrainians are bearing wasn't so high.)
The Islamists are also forcing out all the clubs, bars and cinemas in the West End under the radar. Criterion Capital and their Foundation now control Soho. From Tottenham Court Road to Leicester Square and Piccadilly Circus. Hence LGBTQ gone, Trocadero gone, Home gone etc
A very sharp piece from Paul Vallely, in the Church Times (you get 2 free articles so can see it). Most unlike him; he's normally the soul of discretion.
Perhaps Ms Leadbeater might align herself with the consequentialist principle of Bentham: that the rightness of an action is judged entirely by its utility; or with Mill’s dispensation, which would suggest that manipulative or coercive behaviour can be morally acceptable if it maximises the overall well-being of the general population.
Those who disagree with her view that legalising assisted suicide is for the greater good might be less charitable. They might regard her as neither a deontologist nor a consequentialist, but as a dishonest politician.
A very sharp piece from Paul Vallely, in the Church Times (you get 2 free articles so can see it). Most unlike him; he's normally the soul of discretion.
Perhaps Ms Leadbeater might align herself with the consequentialist principle of Bentham: that the rightness of an action is judged entirely by its utility; or with Mill’s dispensation, which would suggest that manipulative or coercive behaviour can be morally acceptable if it maximises the overall well-being of the general population.
Those who disagree with her view that legalising assisted suicide is for the greater good might be less charitable. They might regard her as neither a deontologist nor a consequentialist, but as a dishonest politician.
For those who thought the ukraine war was a good idea ( most of pb including rcs)
Rubio: We deceived people into believing that Ukraine could defeat Russia
" The administration of the previous US leader, Joseph Biden, miscalculated by financing Ukraine in its conflict with Russia and somehow managed to convince people that Kiev could not only win, but also destroy Moscow. Ukraine has been set back 100 years because of the conflict, its energy system is badly damaged ," said US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
No, we all thought the Ukraine war was an extremely bad idea.
The only person who thought it was a good idea was Putin. So he's the one to direct your ire at.
(I think most of us thought Ukraine would be wiped out in a week. We've only changed our views because of the extraordinary tenacity they've shown, inflicting immense and possibly terminal damage on Russia, which would be funny if the cost the Ukrainians are bearing wasn't so high.)
There was a chance for peace early. Much suffering could have been avoided.
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?
I did, click the “show previous quotes” button to see more.
I was wondering in which contituency you live, who’s your MP, and why the NIMBYs are a particular problem in your area?
Errr. Personal questions. I will reveal all if im still on this site in a month. Hows that.
You were saying that NIMBYs were a problem, I was simply asking for examples.
I’m not asking for your address, just an idea of where you come from as a new poster…
All will be revealed in a month.
Well if you carry on at 36 posts an hour you’ll be up there with me in a couple of months. And I’ve been here for a decade.
I need to make an excellent first impression lol
Quality rather than quantity is a good maxim. To adapt Solomon's proverb, better to refrain from posting and be thought a fool, than to type and remove all doubt
Wrt Kim Ledbetter and the Assisted Dying Bill, and @Cyclefree 's comment.
A very sharp piece from Paul Vallely, in the Church Times (you get 2 free articles so can see it). Most unlike him; he's normally the soul of discretion. There are more philosophers discussed.
Perhaps Ms Leadbeater might align herself with the consequentialist principle of Bentham: that the rightness of an action is judged entirely by its utility; or with Mill’s dispensation, which would suggest that manipulative or coercive behaviour can be morally acceptable if it maximises the overall well-being of the general population.
Those who disagree with her view that legalising assisted suicide is for the greater good might be less charitable. They might regard her as neither a deontologist nor a consequentialist, but as a dishonest politician.
Had to look up deontologist - sounded like the sort I know which studies dentition ... apparently espouses the ethical theory that uses rules to distinguish right from wrong eg Kant I.
For those who thought the ukraine war was a good idea ( most of pb including rcs)
Rubio: We deceived people into believing that Ukraine could defeat Russia
" The administration of the previous US leader, Joseph Biden, miscalculated by financing Ukraine in its conflict with Russia and somehow managed to convince people that Kiev could not only win, but also destroy Moscow. Ukraine has been set back 100 years because of the conflict, its energy system is badly damaged ," said US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
For those who thought the ukraine war was a good idea ( most of pb including rcs)
Rubio: We deceived people into believing that Ukraine could defeat Russia
" The administration of the previous US leader, Joseph Biden, miscalculated by financing Ukraine in its conflict with Russia and somehow managed to convince people that Kiev could not only win, but also destroy Moscow. Ukraine has been set back 100 years because of the conflict, its energy system is badly damaged ," said US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
No, we all thought the Ukraine war was an extremely bad idea.
The only person who thought it was a good idea was Putin. So he's the one to direct your ire at.
(I think most of us thought Ukraine would be wiped out in a week. We've only changed our views because of the extraordinary tenacity they've shown, inflicting immense and possibly terminal damage on Russia, which would be funny if the cost the Ukrainians are bearing wasn't so high.)
There was a chance for peace early. Much suffering could have been avoided.
Well, yes, I agree.
It could all have been avoided entirely if Putin hadn't invaded back in 2014.
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.
Hardly. And your last example is emigration. In London, there were complaints about schoolchildren unable to speak English in the 1980s.
Children not toilet-trained probably partly reflects earlier school starts. It used to be five, now it can be as young as three.
The interesting new problem is children unable to climb stairs. I'd not seen that before today but I suppose that if you live in a flat, you might never see stairs. Come to think of it, my infants school was all on one floor, and I think the one down the road is too.
The point is that immigration has nothing to do with poor parenting. Drugs, maybe. Single parents with no money, zonked on wine or weed, at a pinch.
One thing people never talk about is that a lot of babies are taken away from their parents as soon as they pop out. (We like to imagine forced adoption is a dark horror from the past.) Think about all those families just above that threshold.
If the immigrants themselves are poor parents then society will get the resulting problems.
Now who do you think migrates to the poorer parts of Lincolnshire ?
It will not be immigrants with skills or immigrants with educations or even in many cases immigrants who can speak English.
And problems with unsuitable immigrants can multiply and perpetuate generation after generation.
There are numerous northern mill towns which illustrate that.
Replicating similar generational problems in deprived east coast communities is a needless mistake.
For those who thought the ukraine war was a good idea ( most of pb including rcs)
Rubio: We deceived people into believing that Ukraine could defeat Russia
" The administration of the previous US leader, Joseph Biden, miscalculated by financing Ukraine in its conflict with Russia and somehow managed to convince people that Kiev could not only win, but also destroy Moscow. Ukraine has been set back 100 years because of the conflict, its energy system is badly damaged ," said US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
For those who thought the ukraine war was a good idea ( most of pb including rcs)
Rubio: We deceived people into believing that Ukraine could defeat Russia
" The administration of the previous US leader, Joseph Biden, miscalculated by financing Ukraine in its conflict with Russia and somehow managed to convince people that Kiev could not only win, but also destroy Moscow. Ukraine has been set back 100 years because of the conflict, its energy system is badly damaged ," said US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
For those who thought the ukraine war was a good idea ( most of pb including rcs)
Rubio: We deceived people into believing that Ukraine could defeat Russia
" The administration of the previous US leader, Joseph Biden, miscalculated by financing Ukraine in its conflict with Russia and somehow managed to convince people that Kiev could not only win, but also destroy Moscow. Ukraine has been set back 100 years because of the conflict, its energy system is badly damaged ," said US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
For those who thought the ukraine war was a good idea ( most of pb including rcs)
Rubio: We deceived people into believing that Ukraine could defeat Russia
" The administration of the previous US leader, Joseph Biden, miscalculated by financing Ukraine in its conflict with Russia and somehow managed to convince people that Kiev could not only win, but also destroy Moscow. Ukraine has been set back 100 years because of the conflict, its energy system is badly damaged ," said US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
Stresses how close the west was to saving China from communism. It was not inevitable
Imagine if China - China!! - had followed the model of Taiwan, Japan, Korea, Singapore. On the upside it would be an incredible ally for the west
On the potential downside China would be, by now, and by a great distance, the supreme economic power in the world
I remember reading Stilwell and the American Experience in China, 1911–45 which was a brilliant book, not just because it was written by Barbara Tuchman (although that certainly helps) but because it gave an insight into major events in world history which we so often ignore. As you say, it was a close run thing.
For those who thought the ukraine war was a good idea ( most of pb including rcs)
Rubio: We deceived people into believing that Ukraine could defeat Russia
" The administration of the previous US leader, Joseph Biden, miscalculated by financing Ukraine in its conflict with Russia and somehow managed to convince people that Kiev could not only win, but also destroy Moscow. Ukraine has been set back 100 years because of the conflict, its energy system is badly damaged ," said US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
Oh no, mr moderator, we were still playing with this one!!!!
Where does one find notification of a ban?
The troll was called Chesilbeach. If you look back up the thread to their comments, you’ll see that their username icon is now a grey headshot person with a line through. That icon means that they’re no longer a forum member.
For those who thought the ukraine war was a good idea ( most of pb including rcs)
Rubio: We deceived people into believing that Ukraine could defeat Russia
" The administration of the previous US leader, Joseph Biden, miscalculated by financing Ukraine in its conflict with Russia and somehow managed to convince people that Kiev could not only win, but also destroy Moscow. Ukraine has been set back 100 years because of the conflict, its energy system is badly damaged ," said US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
No, we all thought the Ukraine war was an extremely bad idea.
The only person who thought it was a good idea was Putin. So he's the one to direct your ire at.
(I think most of us thought Ukraine would be wiped out in a week. We've only changed our views because of the extraordinary tenacity they've shown, inflicting immense and possibly terminal damage on Russia, which would be funny if the cost the Ukrainians are bearing wasn't so high.)
None of us realised quite how shit the Russian military was either tbf. They are a joke. Like a big fat blubbery bully getting a serious smacking from someone much smaller, that he thought he would pick on.
I suspect Putin has a very small cock and probably erectile dysfunction which might account for his bullying aggression. .
emergency work, for example to protect livestock during a flood (you must tell Natural England as soon as possible afterwards) operations with permission from a public body or local authority (they must have consulted Natural England before they granted permission)"
May well be different for a NNR or Ramsar (wetland) site - but those are different, and higher, categories.
Right but you cannot build a housing development without permission from natural England on an SSSI - that surely does not come under an exemption?
For those who thought the ukraine war was a good idea ( most of pb including rcs)
Rubio: We deceived people into believing that Ukraine could defeat Russia
" The administration of the previous US leader, Joseph Biden, miscalculated by financing Ukraine in its conflict with Russia and somehow managed to convince people that Kiev could not only win, but also destroy Moscow. Ukraine has been set back 100 years because of the conflict, its energy system is badly damaged ," said US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
No, we all thought the Ukraine war was an extremely bad idea.
The only person who thought it was a good idea was Putin. So he's the one to direct your ire at.
(I think most of us thought Ukraine would be wiped out in a week. We've only changed our views because of the extraordinary tenacity they've shown, inflicting immense and possibly terminal damage on Russia, which would be funny if the cost the Ukrainians are bearing wasn't so high.)
There was a chance for peace early. Much suffering could have been avoided.
Peace could have been had by not sending 200,000 men across the border of a harmless nation.
Feeling conflicted cos I’m agreeing with Tucker Carlson. Still, order is restored when the random vid that follows has Alex Jones blaming the Washington air crash on Islamic terrorists.
For those who thought the ukraine war was a good idea ( most of pb including rcs)
Rubio: We deceived people into believing that Ukraine could defeat Russia
" The administration of the previous US leader, Joseph Biden, miscalculated by financing Ukraine in its conflict with Russia and somehow managed to convince people that Kiev could not only win, but also destroy Moscow. Ukraine has been set back 100 years because of the conflict, its energy system is badly damaged ," said US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
For those who thought the ukraine war was a good idea ( most of pb including rcs)
Rubio: We deceived people into believing that Ukraine could defeat Russia
" The administration of the previous US leader, Joseph Biden, miscalculated by financing Ukraine in its conflict with Russia and somehow managed to convince people that Kiev could not only win, but also destroy Moscow. Ukraine has been set back 100 years because of the conflict, its energy system is badly damaged ," said US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
For those who thought the ukraine war was a good idea ( most of pb including rcs)
Rubio: We deceived people into believing that Ukraine could defeat Russia
" The administration of the previous US leader, Joseph Biden, miscalculated by financing Ukraine in its conflict with Russia and somehow managed to convince people that Kiev could not only win, but also destroy Moscow. Ukraine has been set back 100 years because of the conflict, its energy system is badly damaged ," said US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
For those who thought the ukraine war was a good idea ( most of pb including rcs)
Rubio: We deceived people into believing that Ukraine could defeat Russia
" The administration of the previous US leader, Joseph Biden, miscalculated by financing Ukraine in its conflict with Russia and somehow managed to convince people that Kiev could not only win, but also destroy Moscow. Ukraine has been set back 100 years because of the conflict, its energy system is badly damaged ," said US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
For those who thought the ukraine war was a good idea ( most of pb including rcs)
Rubio: We deceived people into believing that Ukraine could defeat Russia
" The administration of the previous US leader, Joseph Biden, miscalculated by financing Ukraine in its conflict with Russia and somehow managed to convince people that Kiev could not only win, but also destroy Moscow. Ukraine has been set back 100 years because of the conflict, its energy system is badly damaged ," said US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
Rubio is wrong. Biden should have nuked Moscow on 24th Feb 2022.
I hate to agree with our bot to any degree - but no, he shouldn't have.
But we were absolutely right to support the Ukraine. Indeed, if we were open to criticism it was for not doing more.
And so could the Americans, for the matter of that, although even that's now going to be cut off anyway.
Though Trump does seem to be slightly less obsequious to Putin now. Maybe he got the tapes back, or perhaps he has found some evidence of what some have suggested Putin is.
emergency work, for example to protect livestock during a flood (you must tell Natural England as soon as possible afterwards) operations with permission from a public body or local authority (they must have consulted Natural England before they granted permission)"
May well be different for a NNR or Ramsar (wetland) site - but those are different, and higher, categories.
Right but you cannot build a housing development without permission from natural England on an SSSI - that surely does not come under an exemption?
That's for the local authority and, if it comes to that, the national government to decide, with a view to the overall balance. Those guys do this stuff professioonally ...
For those who thought the ukraine war was a good idea ( most of pb including rcs)
Rubio: We deceived people into believing that Ukraine could defeat Russia
" The administration of the previous US leader, Joseph Biden, miscalculated by financing Ukraine in its conflict with Russia and somehow managed to convince people that Kiev could not only win, but also destroy Moscow. Ukraine has been set back 100 years because of the conflict, its energy system is badly damaged ," said US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
For those who thought the ukraine war was a good idea ( most of pb including rcs)
Rubio: We deceived people into believing that Ukraine could defeat Russia
" The administration of the previous US leader, Joseph Biden, miscalculated by financing Ukraine in its conflict with Russia and somehow managed to convince people that Kiev could not only win, but also destroy Moscow. Ukraine has been set back 100 years because of the conflict, its energy system is badly damaged ," said US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
For those who thought the ukraine war was a good idea ( most of pb including rcs)
Rubio: We deceived people into believing that Ukraine could defeat Russia
" The administration of the previous US leader, Joseph Biden, miscalculated by financing Ukraine in its conflict with Russia and somehow managed to convince people that Kiev could not only win, but also destroy Moscow. Ukraine has been set back 100 years because of the conflict, its energy system is badly damaged ," said US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
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.
Immigration drives up rent and property prices and makes it much more difficult for middle income families to have more children. Net emigration of 2-3m of low wage people and their dependents over 5 years would see a huge drop in property demand which would lower rent and stall house prices while also increasing GDP per capita so people will feel better off.
Immigration is a bit like a heroin addict thinking that one more hit will make them feel better. That's the situation we're in right now, we don't want to go through the short term pain of cold turkey which will make a lot of headline numbers look bad but in 5-7 years rebalance the whole economy with, as you point out, pay at the bottom of the scale looking liveable, lower rents, more affordable housing, falling demand leading to lower inflation overall. The country is at breaking point, we simply don't have the capacity in infrastructure to take another 5m people, in fact with the infrastructure we have the country is probably about 3m overpopulated. People including us, talk about lack of infrastructure investment over the last 20 years but the maths of our low wage immigration is the cause of this. We've grown the population from 60m to about 68m, but the economy has grown by far, far less than that population growth should be worth. That has left little to no money for infrastructure, the migrants that have arrived all have dependents and need welfare spending (healthcare, education) which means the government has had to increase spending in these areas more than the tax that those people generate, hence borrowing rising and taxe rates increasing and the overall proportion of the economy accounted for by state spending continually rising.
Immigration must fall rapidly and, I think, in the next government term it must move into a prolonged period of net emigration of low wage and low skill workers. A minimum salary bar of £55-60k for migrants should be implemented for people with dependents and £45-50k for single people. If that causes a labour shortage in healthcare it will force wages to rise and the lazy unemployed/"sick" can actually do some work for once.
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
It can't be that - PB shrewdies and Tory well-wishers like Jonathan assured us she was the only choice.
Eh? Kemi was obviously superior to Jenrick, but currently manifests less raw electoral appeal than chicken pox.
I wonder who will play Corbyn/IDS to her Milliband/Hague
If Labour win the next general election Rees Mogg if he wins his seat back
For those who thought the ukraine war was a good idea ( most of pb including rcs)
Rubio: We deceived people into believing that Ukraine could defeat Russia
" The administration of the previous US leader, Joseph Biden, miscalculated by financing Ukraine in its conflict with Russia and somehow managed to convince people that Kiev could not only win, but also destroy Moscow. Ukraine has been set back 100 years because of the conflict, its energy system is badly damaged ," said US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
For those who thought the ukraine war was a good idea ( most of pb including rcs)
Rubio: We deceived people into believing that Ukraine could defeat Russia
" The administration of the previous US leader, Joseph Biden, miscalculated by financing Ukraine in its conflict with Russia and somehow managed to convince people that Kiev could not only win, but also destroy Moscow. Ukraine has been set back 100 years because of the conflict, its energy system is badly damaged ," said US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
Rubio is wrong. Biden should have nuked Moscow on 24th Feb 2022.
I hate to agree with our bot to any degree - but no, he shouldn't have.
But we were absolutely right to support the Ukraine. Indeed, if we were open to criticism it was for not doing more.
And so could the Americans, for the matter of that, although even that's now going to be cut off anyway.
Well, we'll see. I can see Trump wanting to make Putin an offer he can't refuse: accept these terms or there will be unlimited support and you will lose.
But if Labourites seize on this and get even more complacent, all good
You sound complacent, as you call out complacency ☺️
Where we can agree, Labour (LibDems too) had remarkable efficiency of vote at the last election. I think we can also agree, that amazing efficiency of vote didn’t come from any great love for Starmer or his Labour colleagues or his something and nothing manifesto.
Where we might disagree, I reckon that efficiency of vote was born out of voters dislike for the alternatives.
There isn’t a great love or excitement for this inevitable anti woke, multi cultural society dismantling surge going on out there. In fact a majority can exploit FPTP to effectively and efficiently block such a cultural revolution.
A king once went down to the beach, and let the tide come in over him, in order to say to people STFU - you can’t stop the tide of progress, nor can I, and I’m the king, chosen by God. All this Trumpian and Farage stuff is not heeding that message. It’s just sad old timeless reactionary desperation, You can’t stop the tide of progress coming in.
So what changes between the two general elections, that makes the efficiency of vote for the progressives, the motivation born out of voters dislike for the reactionary cultural revolution, dissipate?
The header is actually spot on, an uninspiring and at times incompetent Labour government, can easily get back in with a landslide, with alternative to them neatly split in votes in FPTP electoral system.
To answer your other question - what made Reform surge in Autumn? Probably the same thing that gave UKIP surge in 2012: a budget. Voters put hands in pockets and don’t find much in there (if I’m allowed a more traditional metaphor) and told by all media that the budget will make that much worse.
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
It can't be that - PB shrewdies and Tory well-wishers like Jonathan assured us she was the only choice.
Eh? Kemi was obviously superior to Jenrick, but currently manifests less raw electoral appeal than chicken pox.
I wonder who will play Corbyn/IDS to her Milliband/Hague
If Labour win the next general election Rees Mogg if he wins his seat back
Heavens above, that would be more Clement Davies to her Archibald Sinclair.
emergency work, for example to protect livestock during a flood (you must tell Natural England as soon as possible afterwards) operations with permission from a public body or local authority (they must have consulted Natural England before they granted permission)"
May well be different for a NNR or Ramsar (wetland) site - but those are different, and higher, categories.
Right but you cannot build a housing development without permission from natural England on an SSSI - that surely does not come under an exemption?
That's for the local authority and, if it comes to that, the national government to decide, with a view to the overall balance. Those guys do this stuff professioonally ...
Anyone claiming otherwise - they may be trying to wind you up.
PS for @rkrkrk - just remembered a nice English example. The coastal defence works either side of Lyme Regis in Dorset over the last 20 years or so. They've covered up a particularly fine exposure of the local Liassic rocks which was famous worldwide for its fossils and collecting over centuries (admittedly cos it was eroding, with the churchyard already partly lost). But they did a reasonable amount IMV while saving the lower town, and creating a sewage processing subplant hidden away under the new seawall right in the centre (ISTR it collects and pumps the shite up the hill for final processing). A perhaps bigger issue was whether it was even *possible* to protect any more of the coast than they did, given how it's so unstable en masse - looks as if they got it right overall. Plus it makes a very nice promenade.
For those who thought the ukraine war was a good idea ( most of pb including rcs)
Rubio: We deceived people into believing that Ukraine could defeat Russia
" The administration of the previous US leader, Joseph Biden, miscalculated by financing Ukraine in its conflict with Russia and somehow managed to convince people that Kiev could not only win, but also destroy Moscow. Ukraine has been set back 100 years because of the conflict, its energy system is badly damaged ," said US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
If there is going to be any more US aid for Ukraine, it's definitely going to be dependent on them conscripting 18-25 year olds. Which would be to Russia's great disadvantage but may be politically impossible for Ukraine. The other problem Zelenskiyiyyiyey has is that if he starts negotiating before the very last moment ahead of a military or political collapse then some Right Sektor lunatic will probably fucking kill him.
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.
Immigration drives up rent and property prices and makes it much more difficult for middle income families to have more children. Net emigration of 2-3m of low wage people and their dependents over 5 years would see a huge drop in property demand which would lower rent and stall house prices while also increasing GDP per capita so people will feel better off.
Immigration is a bit like a heroin addict thinking that one more hit will make them feel better. That's the situation we're in right now, we don't want to go through the short term pain of cold turkey which will make a lot of headline numbers look bad but in 5-7 years rebalance the whole economy with, as you point out, pay at the bottom of the scale looking liveable, lower rents, more affordable housing, falling demand leading to lower inflation overall. The country is at breaking point, we simply don't have the capacity in infrastructure to take another 5m people, in fact with the infrastructure we have the country is probably about 3m overpopulated. People including us, talk about lack of infrastructure investment over the last 20 years but the maths of our low wage immigration is the cause of this. We've grown the population from 60m to about 68m, but the economy has grown by far, far less than that population growth should be worth. That has left little to no money for infrastructure, the migrants that have arrived all have dependents and need welfare spending (healthcare, education) which means the government has had to increase spending in these areas more than the tax that those people generate, hence borrowing rising and taxe rates increasing and the overall proportion of the economy accounted for by state spending continually rising.
Immigration must fall rapidly and, I think, in the next government term it must move into a prolonged period of net emigration of low wage and low skill workers. A minimum salary bar of £55-60k for migrants should be implemented for people with dependents and £45-50k for single people. If that causes a labour shortage in healthcare it will force wages to rise and the lazy unemployed/"sick" can actually do some work for once.
For those who thought the ukraine war was a good idea ( most of pb including rcs)
Rubio: We deceived people into believing that Ukraine could defeat Russia
" The administration of the previous US leader, Joseph Biden, miscalculated by financing Ukraine in its conflict with Russia and somehow managed to convince people that Kiev could not only win, but also destroy Moscow. Ukraine has been set back 100 years because of the conflict, its energy system is badly damaged ," said US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
Comments
I mean - WTAFF?
Is the Private Member’s Bill process being abused here, by government forces who are trying to use a different process with less public scrutiny than would be the case for a government Bill?
either way we should salute his indefatigability
Stresses how close the west was to saving China from communism. It was not inevitable
Imagine if China - China!! - had followed the model of Taiwan, Japan, Korea, Singapore. On the upside it would be an incredible ally for the west
On the potential downside China would be, by now, and by a great distance, the supreme economic power in the world
If we're weak enough to give a 'youth mobility visa' we'll get more immigrants than predicted, lower skilled immigrants than predicted and more dependents than predicted.
The only thing lower than predicted will be the number who leave after their visa expires.
Putin and Xi will love it.
We had this back in November when Chump refused to let his transition team be checked - as required - by the FBI.
Also, one is on an I’m-in-love gap year and the other is at a prestigious UK university, neither has a “job”
I was wondering in which contituency you live, who’s your MP, and why the NIMBYs are a particular problem in your area? What are the projects they’re particularly screwed up?
You may not like Trump's anti woke, anti free trade and anti immigration policies but he has a democratic mandate for them after winning the presidential election with that platform
The issue was inside the head of Trump voters - who swallowed and internalised the BS.
Some Reform supporters will possibly do *that*.
It's more about communication. And we do not yet know, despite the constant wailing, how well this Govt will do.
I’m not asking for your address, just an idea of where you come from as a new poster…
That’s tuition I normally charge £55 an hour for, and you got it for free.
Children not toilet-trained probably partly reflects earlier school starts. It used to be five, now it can be as young as three.
The interesting new problem is children unable to climb stairs. I'd not seen that before today but I suppose that if you live in a flat, you might never see stairs. Come to think of it, my infants school was all on one floor, and I think the one down the road is too.
The point is that immigration has nothing to do with poor parenting. Drugs, maybe. Single parents with no money, zonked on wine or weed, at a pinch.
One thing people never talk about is that a lot of babies are taken away from their parents as soon as they pop out. (We like to imagine forced adoption is a dark horror from the past.) Think about all those families just above that threshold.
Edit: Should have documented it. But see for instance:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/protected-areas-sites-of-special-scientific-interest#check-if-you-need-consent
"When operations do not need consent
You do not need consent for:
emergency work, for example to protect livestock during a flood (you must tell Natural England as soon as possible afterwards)
operations with permission from a public body or local authority (they must have consulted Natural England before they granted permission)"
May well be different for a NNR or Ramsar (wetland) site - but those are different, and higher, categories.
Friends of ours live in a bungalow. When we first moved into our townhouse, they visited with their three year old, who spent all the time just running up and down all the stairs as he rarely encountered them and loved playing on them.
Rubio: We deceived people into believing that Ukraine could defeat Russia
" The administration of the previous US leader, Joseph Biden, miscalculated by financing Ukraine in its conflict with Russia and somehow managed to convince people that Kiev could not only win, but also destroy Moscow. Ukraine has been set back 100 years because of the conflict, its energy system is badly damaged ," said US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
https://x.com/SprinterObserve/status/1885267298195284269
A very sharp piece from Paul Vallely, in the Church Times (you get 2 free articles so can see it). Most unlike him; he's normally the soul of discretion. There are more philosophers discussed. All the Lord Bishops will see this.
Perhaps Ms Leadbeater might align herself with the consequentialist principle of Bentham: that the rightness of an action is judged entirely by its utility; or with Mill’s dispensation, which would suggest that manipulative or coercive behaviour can be morally acceptable if it maximises the overall well-being of the general population.
Those who disagree with her view that legalising assisted suicide is for the greater good might be less charitable. They might regard her as neither a deontologist nor a consequentialist, but as a dishonest politician.
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2025/31-january/comment/columnists/paul-vallely-kim-leadbeater-s-ethics-need-probing
The only person who thought it was a good idea was Putin. So he's the one to direct your ire at.
(I think most of us thought Ukraine would be wiped out in a week. We've only changed our views because of the extraordinary tenacity they've shown, inflicting immense and possibly terminal damage on Russia, which would be funny if the cost the Ukrainians are bearing wasn't so high.)
The Islamists are also forcing out all the clubs, bars and cinemas in the West End under the radar. Criterion Capital and their Foundation now control Soho. From Tottenham Court Road to Leicester Square and Piccadilly Circus.
Hence LGBTQ gone, Trocadero gone, Home gone etc
https://x.com/Citizenuk1927/status/1885310700165181610
That's my PB lesson for the day.
It could all have been avoided entirely if Putin hadn't invaded back in 2014.
Can't be an earlier chance than that.
That was a much better bot than usual though. At least there was an effort at subtlety.
Now who do you think migrates to the poorer parts of Lincolnshire ?
It will not be immigrants with skills or immigrants with educations or even in many cases immigrants who can speak English.
And problems with unsuitable immigrants can multiply and perpetuate generation after generation.
There are numerous northern mill towns which illustrate that.
Replicating similar generational problems in deprived east coast communities is a needless mistake.
Right, stuff to do before the rugby. Isn’t the start of the Six Nations the first positive big event of the new year?
I suspect Putin has a very small cock and probably erectile dysfunction which might account for his bullying aggression. .
Still, order is restored when the random vid that follows has Alex Jones blaming the Washington air crash on Islamic terrorists.
https://x.com/afshinrattansi/status/1885654474749784257?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
https://www.savills.com/blog/article/354811/residential-property/in-plain-english--sites-of-special-scientific-interest-(sssi)-in-england-and-wales.aspx
https://www.thomsonec.com/teh/chapter-8-protected-sites-and-development/development-affecting-sites-of-special-scientific-interest-sssis-and-national-nature-reserves-nnrs/
A famous example here, which damaged a SSSI so much that protection was possibly to be removed (can't remember the current situation):
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-48789620 [OK, Scotland, but the principle is substantially the same]
Anyone claiming otherwise - they may be trying to wind you up.
https://x.com/maks_nafo_fella/status/1885623837334593893
Those packets will be useful for blowing up a few more Russian oil refineries.
*And* you're still not wrong.
(I wonder if Trump will randomly fire him at some point having now made him give up his Senate seat? Would be very Trumpian.)
Immigration is a bit like a heroin addict thinking that one more hit will make them feel better. That's the situation we're in right now, we don't want to go through the short term pain of cold turkey which will make a lot of headline numbers look bad but in 5-7 years rebalance the whole economy with, as you point out, pay at the bottom of the scale looking liveable, lower rents, more affordable housing, falling demand leading to lower inflation overall. The country is at breaking point, we simply don't have the capacity in infrastructure to take another 5m people, in fact with the infrastructure we have the country is probably about 3m overpopulated. People including us, talk about lack of infrastructure investment over the last 20 years but the maths of our low wage immigration is the cause of this. We've grown the population from 60m to about 68m, but the economy has grown by far, far less than that population growth should be worth. That has left little to no money for infrastructure, the migrants that have arrived all have dependents and need welfare spending (healthcare, education) which means the government has had to increase spending in these areas more than the tax that those people generate, hence borrowing rising and taxe rates increasing and the overall proportion of the economy accounted for by state spending continually rising.
Immigration must fall rapidly and, I think, in the next government term it must move into a prolonged period of net emigration of low wage and low skill workers. A minimum salary bar of £55-60k for migrants should be implemented for people with dependents and £45-50k for single people. If that causes a labour shortage in healthcare it will force wages to rise and the lazy unemployed/"sick" can actually do some work for once.
Where we can agree, Labour (LibDems too) had remarkable efficiency of vote at the last election. I think we can also agree, that amazing efficiency of vote didn’t come from any great love for Starmer or his Labour colleagues or his something and nothing manifesto.
Where we might disagree, I reckon that efficiency of vote was born out of voters dislike for the alternatives.
There isn’t a great love or excitement for this inevitable anti woke, multi cultural society dismantling surge going on out there. In fact a majority can exploit FPTP to effectively and efficiently block such a cultural revolution.
A king once went down to the beach, and let the tide come in over him, in order to say to people STFU - you can’t stop the tide of progress, nor can I, and I’m the king, chosen by God. All this Trumpian and Farage stuff is not heeding that message. It’s just sad old timeless reactionary desperation, You can’t stop the tide of progress coming in.
So what changes between the two general elections, that makes the efficiency of vote for the progressives, the motivation born out of voters dislike for the reactionary cultural revolution, dissipate?
The header is actually spot on, an uninspiring and at times incompetent Labour government, can easily get back in with a landslide, with alternative to them neatly split in votes in FPTP electoral system.
To answer your other question - what made Reform surge in Autumn? Probably the same thing that gave UKIP surge in 2012: a budget. Voters put hands in pockets and don’t find much in there (if I’m allowed a more traditional metaphor) and told by all media that the budget will make that much worse.
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2025/1/23/why-is-ukraine-struggling-to-mobilise-its-citizens-to-fight
If there is going to be any more US aid for Ukraine, it's definitely going to be dependent on them conscripting 18-25 year olds. Which would be to Russia's great disadvantage but may be politically impossible for Ukraine. The other problem Zelenskiyiyyiyey has is that if he starts negotiating before the very last moment ahead of a military or political collapse then some Right Sektor lunatic will probably fucking kill him.