The irony of the header is that no one played Trump better than Starmer - (other than Bibi) and fundamental to that strategy was Mandelson and all the dirt he has on Trump.
Farage or Badenoch would by now have us as the 52nd State utterly subservient and at War with Iran.
Any thought of either of them ever being PM is as dangerous as the Mail and Express wanting Oswald Moseley as PM in 1940.
Again she's ruling out a pact, but AFAICS she's not ruling out putting Nigel Farage in power.
Ruling out putting Farage in power would be equivalent to committing to forming a 'coalition of chaos' even if Reform have 300+ MPs. Her position is the only politically sensible one.
No it’s not.
There’s other options.
Such as let Reform run a minority government or have another election.
Kemi telling Tory MPs to abstain in a confidence vote in a hung Parliament is neither making Farage PM nor keeping Labour in office. So her position is correct
How is abstaining in a VoC when everyone else votes against not "making Farage PM?"
As it isn’t voting to make Farage PM anymore than it is voting to make Starmer or Burnham PM
Let's test this - if an opponent tried the same line would you accept the same logic and not criticise them for 'allowing' it?
No. A positive vote for Burnham or Starmer is a vote for a Labour government, a positive vote for Farage is a vote for a Reform government, abstaining is a vote for neither only a Kemi led government
Kemi's in no position to form a government,
She could be in a position to join a coalition but then who with She;s falling straight in to the CDU trap.
No she isn’t, the CDU have gone into coalition with the SPD. Kemi has ruled out a deal with Labour or Reform
Then she's just opting to be the opposition, Or is she going to merge with the LDs ?
The Tories are in an impossible situation - a large section of their never Labour vote has gone to Reform - it's not exactly easy to get it back.
Worse they don't want to lose any chance of getting some never Reform votes so they have to rule out supporting Reform.
It leaves Kemi and the Tory party a very fine line that they have to navigate in the hope / until the political landscape changes to their favour..
I think the bigger problem for the Tories is trying to recover some credibility. They have been behind some of the worst policy decisions this country has seen. They struggle to take HMG to task as it quite often is just continuing what they started,
The Tory USP that more than any other factor explains why they usually win UK general elections is that they are trusted with the £££ more than Labour are. Liz Truss dropped that most precious aspect of the brand on the floor, stamped on it, crushed it to dust and buried the ashes deep underground in a heavily locked casket. Kemi has to excavate and retrieve it in order to win again. I've made it sound impossible but it isn't. Just start the dig and keep at it.
Tbh I didnt even notice the Truss shock either personally or at work. To me most of it was a City flap because a lot of overpaid people found themselves wrong sided.
You weren't trying to buy a flat at the time as I was, then. What a staggeringly arrogant post.
Why is you buying a flat my prime concern ?
Shit happens and you get over it.
Yeah, that's why the Tories lost.
Indeed and Labour will be close behind as their record on the economy is appalling.
I do not believe Labour will lose in 2029.
Rough approximation model of UK General Elections:
Whichever side/bloc is less divided, or more efficiently divided, wins.
Because of that, Kemi and Nigel need an understanding. But because they're both divas, and Nigel is toxic to many, they can't come to an understanding.
Everything else is noise.
They need to disagree to appeal to different voter blocs. Farage - WWC, a good portion of pensioners. Tories - young white collar professionals, small to medium-sized business people, people who do something in the city, posh people in the shires. Obviously with some crossover.
Add them up when the election has happened, you have a powerful coalition representing the majority of the electorate.
We've just had a real time exercise in testing Farage's preternatural attraction to the WWC.
Yes we have, it was called the local elections and he cleaned up with the WWC, including in Makerfield.
In the Makerfield by-election itself, many of Burnham's supporters are Reform voters, directly crossing over either because they like Burnham or because he is going to get rid of Starmer, or both. BigG's convoluted theory that Burnham drew his support from loyal Tories determined to sock it to Farage was deeply implausible.
Really? It boils down to do you want a Reform government at some point in the future or not. As a never Reform voter - I would have voted for Burnham..
That would be your motivation. You can't impute that to everyone else.
All I did there was impute my viewpoint on to others. - which is also what you did but you aren't bright enough to pick up why you post what you post.
Always quite distasteful when the mildest of contradictions results in a personal insult. A sign of immense weakness of argument, and perhaps a little projection.
The irony of the header is that no one played Trump better than Starmer - (other than Bibi) and fundamental to that strategy was Mandelson and all the dirt he has on Trump.
Farage or Badenoch would by now have us as the 52nd State utterly subservient and at War with Iran.
Any thought of either of them ever being PM is as dangerous as the Mail and Express wanting Oswald Moseley as PM in 1940.
Utter hyperbole
And this from someone who wants Tel Aviv bombed and UK nuclear weapon surrendered in an act of utter stupidity that would be applauded throughout the Kremlin
Again she's ruling out a pact, but AFAICS she's not ruling out putting Nigel Farage in power.
Ruling out putting Farage in power would be equivalent to committing to forming a 'coalition of chaos' even if Reform have 300+ MPs. Her position is the only politically sensible one.
No it’s not.
There’s other options.
Such as let Reform run a minority government or have another election.
Kemi telling Tory MPs to abstain in a confidence vote in a hung Parliament is neither making Farage PM nor keeping Labour in office. So her position is correct
How is abstaining in a VoC when everyone else votes against not "making Farage PM?"
As it isn’t voting to make Farage PM anymore than it is voting to make Starmer or Burnham PM
Let's test this - if an opponent tried the same line would you accept the same logic and not criticise them for 'allowing' it?
No. A positive vote for Burnham or Starmer is a vote for a Labour government, a positive vote for Farage is a vote for a Reform government, abstaining is a vote for neither only a Kemi led government
Kemi's in no position to form a government,
She could be in a position to join a coalition but then who with She;s falling straight in to the CDU trap.
No she isn’t, the CDU have gone into coalition with the SPD. Kemi has ruled out a deal with Labour or Reform
Then she's just opting to be the opposition, Or is she going to merge with the LDs ?
The Tories are in an impossible situation - a large section of their never Labour vote has gone to Reform - it's not exactly easy to get it back.
Worse they don't want to lose any chance of getting some never Reform votes so they have to rule out supporting Reform.
It leaves Kemi and the Tory party a very fine line that they have to navigate in the hope / until the political landscape changes to their favour..
I think the bigger problem for the Tories is trying to recover some credibility. They have been behind some of the worst policy decisions this country has seen. They struggle to take HMG to task as it quite often is just continuing what they started,
The Tory USP that more than any other factor explains why they usually win UK general elections is that they are trusted with the £££ more than Labour are. Liz Truss dropped that most precious aspect of the brand on the floor, stamped on it, crushed it to dust and buried the ashes deep underground in a heavily locked casket. Kemi has to excavate and retrieve it in order to win again. I've made it sound impossible but it isn't. Just start the dig and keep at it.
Tbh I didnt even notice the Truss shock either personally or at work. To me most of it was a City flap because a lot of overpaid people found themselves wrong sided.
You weren't trying to buy a flat at the time as I was, then. What a staggeringly arrogant post.
Why is you buying a flat my prime concern ?
Shit happens and you get over it.
Yeah, that's why the Tories lost.
Indeed and Labour will be close behind as their record on the economy is appalling.
I do not believe Labour will lose in 2029.
Rough approximation model of UK General Elections:
Whichever side/bloc is less divided, or more efficiently divided, wins.
Because of that, Kemi and Nigel need an understanding. But because they're both divas, and Nigel is toxic to many, they can't come to an understanding.
Everything else is noise.
They need to disagree to appeal to different voter blocs. Farage - WWC, a good portion of pensioners. Tories - young white collar professionals, small to medium-sized business people, people who do something in the city, posh people in the shires. Obviously with some crossover.
Add them up when the election has happened, you have a powerful coalition representing the majority of the electorate.
We've just had a real time exercise in testing Farage's preternatural attraction to the WWC.
Yes we have, it was called the local elections and he cleaned up with the WWC, including in Makerfield.
In the Makerfield by-election itself, many of Burnham's supporters are Reform voters, directly crossing over either because they like Burnham or because he is going to get rid of Starmer, or both. BigG's convoluted theory that Burnham drew his support from loyal Tories determined to sock it to Farage was deeply implausible.
Really? It boils down to do you want a Reform government at some point in the future or not. As a never Reform voter - I would have voted for Burnham..
That would be your motivation. You can't impute that to everyone else.
All I did there was impute my viewpoint on to others. - which is also what you did but you aren't bright enough to pick up why you post what you post.
Always quite distasteful when the mildest of contradictions results in a personal insult. A sign of immense weakness of argument, and perhaps a little projection.
If you think that's an insult you really are the most tender of souls...
The irony of the header is that no one played Trump better than Starmer - (other than Bibi) and fundamental to that strategy was Mandelson and all the dirt he has on Trump.
Farage or Badenoch would by now have us as the 52nd State utterly subservient and at War with Iran.
Any thought of either of them ever being PM is as dangerous as the Mail and Express wanting Oswald Moseley as PM in 1940.
Carney was right in the speech of the year. Middle power countries do not help themselves by humbling themselves before the super powers. They do much better when they stand together rather than asking for favours from the table. As he put it in a memorable sentence: "Middle powers must act together because if we're not at the table, we're on the menu."
Its a lesson that Starmer (and Blair) have not learned.
The irony of the header is that no one played Trump better than Starmer - (other than Bibi) and fundamental to that strategy was Mandelson and all the dirt he has on Trump.
Farage or Badenoch would by now have us as the 52nd State utterly subservient and at War with Iran.
Any thought of either of them ever being PM is as dangerous as the Mail and Express wanting Oswald Moseley as PM in 1940.
Carney was right in the speech of the year. Middle power countries do not help themselves by humbling themselves before the super powers. They do much better when they stand together rather than asking for favours from the table. As he put it in a memorable sentence: "Middle powers must act together because if we're not at the table, we're on the menu."
Its a lesson that Starmer (and Blair) have not learned.
I thought Blair's essay was excellent but his bit on America was completely braindead.
Not sure why jumping on @Brixian59 is allowed but jumping on others is not. Surely it can't be politics related
Don't be so precious.
Disagreeing with anyone has always been allowed, even if its many people disagreeing with the same person.
Anyone who holds extreme or unpopular views can have many people simultaneously disagreeing with them. I frequently have and have never complained about being jumped on, nor had people rushing to my defence on that ground - not that I would want it either. Many people here have, anyone with strong views that goes against the mainstream tends to.
Turning personal and abusive is another matter, but that hasn't happened.
Not sure why jumping on @Brixian59 is allowed but jumping on others is not. Surely it can't be politics related
Don't be so precious.
Disagreeing with anyone has always been allowed, even if its many people disagreeing with the same person.
Anyone who holds extreme or unpopular views can have many people simultaneously disagreeing with them. I frequently have and have never complained about being jumped on, nor had people rushing to my defence on that ground - not that I would want it either. Many people here have, anyone with strong views that goes against the mainstream tends to.
Turning personal and abusive is another matter, but that hasn't happened.
@Brixian59 is one of the best posters on this board. People just don't like their posts because they are unapologetically "Labour".
Not sure why jumping on @Brixian59 is allowed but jumping on others is not. Surely it can't be politics related
Don't be so precious.
Disagreeing with anyone has always been allowed, even if its many people disagreeing with the same person.
Anyone who holds extreme or unpopular views can have many people simultaneously disagreeing with them. I frequently have and have never complained about being jumped on, nor had people rushing to my defence on that ground - not that I would want it either. Many people here have, anyone with strong views that goes against the mainstream tends to.
Turning personal and abusive is another matter, but that hasn't happened.
@Brixian59 is one of the best posters on this board. People just don't like their posts because they are unapologetically "Labour".
Technically, it's not going up as fast. "Falling" would require a net outflow.
Immigration has fallen from a high of 1.4 million in 2022 to 800 000 in 2025. Will reduce further this year.
Sunak introduced the new rules and Starmer went with them resulting in the reduction to date
12 years of Tory rule had led to 1.4m immigrants in 2022.
A lot of those extra immigrants in 2022 were refugees from Ukraine and Hong Kong, so there might be a moral dimension. It is true Tories didn't limit immigration particularly strongly despite their rhetoric around the highly damaging Brexit. There are economic benefits to immigration.
Technically, it's not going up as fast. "Falling" would require a net outflow.
Immigration has fallen from a high of 1.4 million in 2022 to 800 000 in 2025. Will reduce further this year.
Sunak introduced the new rules and Starmer went with them resulting in the reduction to date
12 years of Tory rule had led to 1.4m immigrants in 2022.
A lot of those extra immigrants in 2022 were refugees from Ukraine and Hong Kong, so there might be a moral dimension. It is true Tories didn't limit immigration particularly strongly despite their rhetoric around the highly damaging Brexit. There are economic benefits to immigration.
Boris followed his rhetoric and did implement it.
Its just that people didn't listen to what he had consistently had to say about migration for a long time.
Boris was always liberal on immigration. He was never a xenophobe. He went into the 2019 election abolishing the tens of thousands claim.
Not sure why jumping on @Brixian59 is allowed but jumping on others is not. Surely it can't be politics related
Don't be so precious.
Disagreeing with anyone has always been allowed, even if its many people disagreeing with the same person.
Anyone who holds extreme or unpopular views can have many people simultaneously disagreeing with them. I frequently have and have never complained about being jumped on, nor had people rushing to my defence on that ground - not that I would want it either. Many people here have, anyone with strong views that goes against the mainstream tends to.
Turning personal and abusive is another matter, but that hasn't happened.
@Brixian59 is one of the best posters on this board. People just don't like their posts because they are unapologetically "Labour".
The irony of the header is that no one played Trump better than Starmer - (other than Bibi) and fundamental to that strategy was Mandelson and all the dirt he has on Trump.
Farage or Badenoch would by now have us as the 52nd State utterly subservient and at War with Iran.
Any thought of either of them ever being PM is as dangerous as the Mail and Express wanting Oswald Moseley as PM in 1940.
Carney was right in the speech of the year. Middle power countries do not help themselves by humbling themselves before the super powers. They do much better when they stand together rather than asking for favours from the table. As he put it in a memorable sentence: "Middle powers must act together because if we're not at the table, we're on the menu."
Its a lesson that Starmer (and Blair) have not learned.
I thought Blair's essay was excellent but his bit on America was completely braindead.
Yep, totally agree. And I really wasn't jumping on @Brixian59.
Tories and Farage called for a fall in NET MIGRATION for years.
Decent chance Labour achieves net emigration next year.
Net emigration being the goal was never mentioned before Lowe got big on X, started going on about mass deportations, and fell out with Farage. Net migration in the tens of thousands was the supposed end point throughout the entire Tories' duration in office.
The irony of the header is that no one played Trump better than Starmer - (other than Bibi) and fundamental to that strategy was Mandelson and all the dirt he has on Trump.
Farage or Badenoch would by now have us as the 52nd State utterly subservient and at War with Iran.
Any thought of either of them ever being PM is as dangerous as the Mail and Express wanting Oswald Moseley as PM in 1940.
Carney was right in the speech of the year. Middle power countries do not help themselves by humbling themselves before the super powers. They do much better when they stand together rather than asking for favours from the table. As he put it in a memorable sentence: "Middle powers must act together because if we're not at the table, we're on the menu."
Its a lesson that Starmer (and Blair) have not learned.
I thought Blair's essay was excellent but his bit on America was completely braindead.
Yep, totally agree. And I really wasn't jumping on @Brixian59.
Tories and Farage called for a fall in NET MIGRATION for years.
Decent chance Labour achieves net emigration next year.
Net emigration being the goal was never mentioned before Lowe got big on X, started going on about mass deportations, and fell out with Farage. Net migration in the tens of thousands was the supposed end point throughout the entire Tories' duration in office.
Lowe is dangerous. But his ability to actually have real impact seems currently minimal thank goodness.
For a while I genuinely thought Farage had cleaned up his act but he can't help but flirt with these sorts of people and their voters. Not fit.
Tories and Farage called for a fall in NET MIGRATION for years.
Decent chance Labour achieves net emigration next year.
Net emigration being the goal was never mentioned before Lowe got big on X, started going on about mass deportations, and fell out with Farage. Net migration in the tens of thousands was the supposed end point throughout the entire Tories' duration in office.
Net migration in the tens of thousands was a policy of Cameron/May, not throughout the entire Tories duration in office.
Not sure why jumping on @Brixian59 is allowed but jumping on others is not. Surely it can't be politics related
Don't be so precious.
Disagreeing with anyone has always been allowed, even if its many people disagreeing with the same person.
Anyone who holds extreme or unpopular views can have many people simultaneously disagreeing with them. I frequently have and have never complained about being jumped on, nor had people rushing to my defence on that ground - not that I would want it either. Many people here have, anyone with strong views that goes against the mainstream tends to.
Turning personal and abusive is another matter, but that hasn't happened.
@Brixian59 is one of the best posters on this board. People just don't like their posts because they are unapologetically "Labour".
But relative to Carney's performance in Canada or Trump himself in the USA, it's not coming down fast enough.
It's quite possible we could be in a situation of next emigration within a year or two. That's not the sign of a successful economy.
That's just outdated dogma.
We consistently had net emigration during the industrial revolution and most of the post-war period up to the 1990s. China has consistently had net emigration during its rise to global pre-eminence. Eastern European countries had net emigration while they were catching up fast with the West.
The best way to measure our economic prospects isn't the number of Deliveroo riders we find employment for.
Not sure why jumping on @Brixian59 is allowed but jumping on others is not. Surely it can't be politics related
Don't be so precious.
Disagreeing with anyone has always been allowed, even if its many people disagreeing with the same person.
Anyone who holds extreme or unpopular views can have many people simultaneously disagreeing with them. I frequently have and have never complained about being jumped on, nor had people rushing to my defence on that ground - not that I would want it either. Many people here have, anyone with strong views that goes against the mainstream tends to.
Turning personal and abusive is another matter, but that hasn't happened.
@Brixian59 is one of the best posters on this board. People just don't like their posts because they are unapologetically "Labour".
But relative to Carney's performance in Canada or Trump himself in the USA, it's not coming down fast enough.
It's quite possible we could be in a situation of next emigration within a year or two. That's not the sign of a successful economy.
That's just outdated dogma.
We consistently had net emigration during the industrial revolution and most of the post-war period up to the 1990s. China has consistently had net emigration during its rise to global pre-eminence. Eastern European countries had net emigration while they were catching up fast with the West.
The best way to measure our economic prospects isn't the number of Deliveroo riders we find employment for.
Although there is the mystery of how immigrants qualify if they are Deliveroo / Just Eat riders..
Was Starmer particularly pliant towards Trump? He didn’t take part in the US led Iran attacks for example. Indeed on things like North Sea oil Trump mentions Burnham might be a bit more pro drilling than Starmer and Ed Miliband even if he is otherwise tax and spend
Tories and Farage called for a fall in NET MIGRATION for years.
Decent chance Labour achieves net emigration next year.
Net emigration being the goal was never mentioned before Lowe got big on X, started going on about mass deportations, and fell out with Farage. Net migration in the tens of thousands was the supposed end point throughout the entire Tories' duration in office.
Net migration in the tens of thousands was a policy of Cameron/May, not throughout the entire Tories duration in office.
Boris abolished that ambition.
And yet the policy is back. As the Good Book says, As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.
I suppose the question is- what is the end in mind of such a policy?
Is it just about numbers? That feels oddly desicated. (Which is what we might all be in the south of the UK by Thursday.)
Is it pressure on public services? Perhaps, though there are bigger issues there, and in some ways, cutting migration threatens to make things worse. And if your worry is housing, there's One Weird Trick they don't want you to know that solves it.
Is it not liking seeing different faces, hearing different accents on the streets? I'd like to say tough luck. After all, I'm not a native of the London/Essex borderlands, do I have to move back to South Hampshire? But it's also a really tough hurdle to cross- resetting every town to zero incomers is unimaginable... isn't it?
But relative to Carney's performance in Canada or Trump himself in the USA, it's not coming down fast enough.
It's quite possible we could be in a situation of next emigration within a year or two. That's not the sign of a successful economy.
That's just outdated dogma.
We consistently had net emigration during the industrial revolution and most of the post-war period up to the 1990s. China has consistently had net emigration during its rise to global pre-eminence. Eastern European countries had net emigration while they were catching up fast with the West.
The best way to measure our economic prospects isn't the number of Deliveroo riders we find employment for.
Although there is the mystery of how immigrants qualify if they are Deliveroo / Just Eat riders..
If you find that mysterious, I have a selection of bridges over the Thames I can sell you. Very reasonable prices.
Burnham will quickly emerge as the most compelling figure in Western politics other than Trump.
He will be fresher than Macron, have a stronger domestic position than Merz, run a more important country than Carney and have more international relevance than Meloni.
If he plays his cards right, he could be PM for a decade.
Burnham would also be the most leftwing leader of the G7. Ten years of Burnham as PM and the UK would be heading towards socialism
But relative to Carney's performance in Canada or Trump himself in the USA, it's not coming down fast enough.
It's quite possible we could be in a situation of next emigration within a year or two. That's not the sign of a successful economy.
That's just outdated dogma.
We consistently had net emigration during the industrial revolution and most of the post-war period up to the 1990s. China has consistently had net emigration during its rise to global pre-eminence. Eastern European countries had net emigration while they were catching up fast with the West.
The best way to measure our economic prospects isn't the number of Deliveroo riders we find employment for.
Your dogma is the outdated one, based as it is on 1970s Malthusianism. In the industrial revolution we also had massively positive fertility and natural population growth. In the post war years we had a baby boom, until the 1970s which few people these days would argue was a demographic golden age.
The world we're in now is very different. Fertility is through the floor. Natural population growth is negative. Britain, and Europe, seems destined to become continental versions of Japan, or Belarus. As does most of East Asia.
Tories and Farage called for a fall in NET MIGRATION for years.
Decent chance Labour achieves net emigration next year.
Net emigration being the goal was never mentioned before Lowe got big on X, started going on about mass deportations, and fell out with Farage. Net migration in the tens of thousands was the supposed end point throughout the entire Tories' duration in office.
Net migration in the tens of thousands was a policy of Cameron/May, not throughout the entire Tories duration in office.
Boris abolished that ambition.
And yet the policy is back. As the Good Book says, As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.
I suppose the question is- what is the end in mind of such a policy?
Is it just about numbers? That feels oddly desicated. (Which is what we might all be in the south of the UK by Thursday.)
Is it pressure on public services? Perhaps, though there are bigger issues there, and in some ways, cutting migration threatens to make things worse. And if your worry is housing, there's One Weird Trick they don't want you to know that solves it.
Is it not liking seeing different faces, hearing different accents on the streets? I'd like to say tough luck. After all, I'm not a native of the London/Essex borderlands, do I have to move back to South Hampshire? But it's also a really tough hurdle to cross- resetting every town to zero incomers is unimaginable... isn't it?
We'd be dessicated in the South were it not for the ludicrously high forecast wet bulb temperatures and dewpoints. More sous-vide than barbecue.
Not sure why jumping on @Brixian59 is allowed but jumping on others is not. Surely it can't be politics related
Don't be so precious.
Disagreeing with anyone has always been allowed, even if its many people disagreeing with the same person.
Anyone who holds extreme or unpopular views can have many people simultaneously disagreeing with them. I frequently have and have never complained about being jumped on, nor had people rushing to my defence on that ground - not that I would want it either. Many people here have, anyone with strong views that goes against the mainstream tends to.
Turning personal and abusive is another matter, but that hasn't happened.
@Brixian59 is one of the best posters on this board. People just don't like their posts because they are unapologetically "Labour".
I like Brixian59, I just don't agree with him much.
Not sure why jumping on @Brixian59 is allowed but jumping on others is not. Surely it can't be politics related
Don't be so precious.
Disagreeing with anyone has always been allowed, even if its many people disagreeing with the same person.
Anyone who holds extreme or unpopular views can have many people simultaneously disagreeing with them. I frequently have and have never complained about being jumped on, nor had people rushing to my defence on that ground - not that I would want it either. Many people here have, anyone with strong views that goes against the mainstream tends to.
Turning personal and abusive is another matter, but that hasn't happened.
@Brixian59 is one of the best posters on this board. People just don't like their posts because they are unapologetically "Labour".
No, people find them tiresome because they are unremitttingly biased and partisan which reduces their conversational value to zero. There is an utter lack of self awareness. He is the political equivalent of Leon but without the comedy value.
And I say this even though I sometimes agree with him.
Meanwhile here on the night sleeper from Izmir to Ankara, we've broken down. In traditional style there have been zero announcements. Just sitting stationary on the track for an hour. I only found out we'd broken down when I asked the man at the buffet car for a kofte and he wrote on Google translate "the train has broken down so I cannot cook".
Broken down also means the a/c is out of action. Nobody seems particularly bothered, yet.
But relative to Carney's performance in Canada or Trump himself in the USA, it's not coming down fast enough.
It's quite possible we could be in a situation of next emigration within a year or two. That's not the sign of a successful economy.
That's just outdated dogma.
We consistently had net emigration during the industrial revolution and most of the post-war period up to the 1990s. China has consistently had net emigration during its rise to global pre-eminence. Eastern European countries had net emigration while they were catching up fast with the West.
The best way to measure our economic prospects isn't the number of Deliveroo riders we find employment for.
Your dogma is the outdated one, based as it is on 1970s Malthusianism. In the industrial revolution we also had massively positive fertility and natural population growth. In the post war years we had a baby boom, until the 1970s which few people these days would argue was a demographic golden age.
The world we're in now is very different. Fertility is through the floor. Natural population growth is negative. Britain, and Europe, seems destined to become continent versions of Japan, or Belarus. As does most of East Asia.
If the whole world is heading that way, it shows the futility of trying to avoid facing up to difficult demographic questions by using immigration as a stop gap. Immigrants get old too, and the political destabilisation isn't worth it.
Not sure why jumping on @Brixian59 is allowed but jumping on others is not. Surely it can't be politics related
Don't be so precious.
Disagreeing with anyone has always been allowed, even if its many people disagreeing with the same person.
Anyone who holds extreme or unpopular views can have many people simultaneously disagreeing with them. I frequently have and have never complained about being jumped on, nor had people rushing to my defence on that ground - not that I would want it either. Many people here have, anyone with strong views that goes against the mainstream tends to.
Turning personal and abusive is another matter, but that hasn't happened.
@Brixian59 is one of the best posters on this board. People just don't like their posts because they are unapologetically "Labour".
No, people find them tiresome because they are unremitttingly biased and partisan which reduces their conversational value to zero. There is an utter lack of self awareness. He is the political equivalent of Leon but without the comedy value.
And I say this even though I sometimes agree with him.
Tories and Farage called for a fall in NET MIGRATION for years.
Decent chance Labour achieves net emigration next year.
Net emigration being the goal was never mentioned before Lowe got big on X, started going on about mass deportations, and fell out with Farage. Net migration in the tens of thousands was the supposed end point throughout the entire Tories' duration in office.
Net migration in the tens of thousands was a policy of Cameron/May, not throughout the entire Tories duration in office.
Boris abolished that ambition.
And yet the policy is back. As the Good Book says, As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.
I suppose the question is- what is the end in mind of such a policy?
Is it just about numbers? That feels oddly desicated. (Which is what we might all be in the south of the UK by Thursday.)
Is it pressure on public services? Perhaps, though there are bigger issues there, and in some ways, cutting migration threatens to make things worse. And if your worry is housing, there's One Weird Trick they don't want you to know that solves it.
Is it not liking seeing different faces, hearing different accents on the streets? I'd like to say tough luck. After all, I'm not a native of the London/Essex borderlands, do I have to move back to South Hampshire? But it's also a really tough hurdle to cross- resetting every town to zero incomers is unimaginable... isn't it?
Speaking personally (and I appreciate that I live in Scotland which is largely empty and has none of the pressures of the south of England or London), I want immigrants with skills, the drive and ambition to make something of themselves in this country. I don't want Just Eat drivers, I don't want large families on benefits claiming our supplies of public sector housing, I don't particularly want Primary Schools with 15+ languages and so many children where English is not their first language slowing the class down. I don't want men from theocratic societies that treat women as chattels. I want people who want to integrate and add to our society, not keep apart from it.
In short, I have no great problem with immigration, I do have problems with those not interested in integration.
Burnham will quickly emerge as the most compelling figure in Western politics other than Trump.
He will be fresher than Macron, have a stronger domestic position than Merz, run a more important country than Carney and have more international relevance than Meloni.
If he plays his cards right, he could be PM for a decade.
Burnham would also be the most leftwing leader of the G7. Ten years of Burnham as PM and the UK would be heading towards socialism
But relative to Carney's performance in Canada or Trump himself in the USA, it's not coming down fast enough.
It's quite possible we could be in a situation of next emigration within a year or two. That's not the sign of a successful economy.
That's just outdated dogma.
We consistently had net emigration during the industrial revolution and most of the post-war period up to the 1990s. China has consistently had net emigration during its rise to global pre-eminence. Eastern European countries had net emigration while they were catching up fast with the West.
The best way to measure our economic prospects isn't the number of Deliveroo riders we find employment for.
Although there is the mystery of how immigrants qualify if they are Deliveroo / Just Eat riders..
If you find that mysterious, I have a selection of bridges over the Thames I can sell you. Very reasonable prices.
I said it was a mystery - i didn't say I found it mysterious.
Heck I've seen but not been able to identify firms charging £500 a month on top of the initial work visa fee to ensure the worker looks employed and that the NI is paid. Yes I see the flaws in that plan..
Not sure why jumping on @Brixian59 is allowed but jumping on others is not. Surely it can't be politics related
Don't be so precious.
Disagreeing with anyone has always been allowed, even if its many people disagreeing with the same person.
Anyone who holds extreme or unpopular views can have many people simultaneously disagreeing with them. I frequently have and have never complained about being jumped on, nor had people rushing to my defence on that ground - not that I would want it either. Many people here have, anyone with strong views that goes against the mainstream tends to.
Turning personal and abusive is another matter, but that hasn't happened.
@Brixian59 is one of the best posters on this board. People just don't like their posts because they are unapologetically "Labour".
No, people find them tiresome because they are unremitttingly biased and partisan which reduces their conversational value to zero. There is an utter lack of self awareness. He is the political equivalent of Leon but without the comedy value.
And I say this even though I sometimes agree with him.
There is also a repetitive overcurrent of "it's Morgan or one of his minions doing party spin" in some of the responses to Brixian. That's also tiresome and, bluntly, not nice. Playing the person not the ball also doesn't add much value to the conversation.
Tories and Farage called for a fall in NET MIGRATION for years.
Decent chance Labour achieves net emigration next year.
You say this like it is a good thing! Actually I am pretty sure you don't think that but we really do need to try and change the debate about migration, at least amongst those of us who are not trying to get elected so don't have to worry about what the Faragistas think.
The whole debate is framed around the idea the migration is bad. This needs to change.
Watching some old sitcoms, were they all mostly terrible actors or was it just style of direction? Old man in Steptoe and son is either bloody awful or a good actor told to mug like a 5 year old.
Wilfred Bramble (Steptoe) was by many accounts an often well-oiled alcoholic. Harry H Corbett aspired to being a serious actor and hated being typecast and trapped in this worldwide hit.
In general, though, that generation of actor had grown up on the stage where subtlety was barely an option, and then in small-screen television where often they'd be framed in close-up or very small, which combined to give the appearance of mugging.
Watching some old sitcoms, were they all mostly terrible actors or was it just style of direction? Old man in Steptoe and son is either bloody awful or a good actor told to mug like a 5 year old.
Wilfred Bramble (Steptoe) was by many accounts an often well-oiled alcoholic. Harry H Corbett aspired to being a serious actor and hated being typecast and trapped in this worldwide hit.
In general, though, that generation of actor had grown up on the stage where subtlety was barely an option, and then in small-screen television where often they'd be framed in close-up or very small, which combined to give the appearance of mugging.
Bramble was also very suave and dressed superbly.
Old sitcom actors were decent actors and appeared, by and large, in a range of productions. There were the exceptions but generally decent actors.
Not sure why jumping on @Brixian59 is allowed but jumping on others is not. Surely it can't be politics related
Don't be so precious.
Disagreeing with anyone has always been allowed, even if its many people disagreeing with the same person.
Anyone who holds extreme or unpopular views can have many people simultaneously disagreeing with them. I frequently have and have never complained about being jumped on, nor had people rushing to my defence on that ground - not that I would want it either. Many people here have, anyone with strong views that goes against the mainstream tends to.
Turning personal and abusive is another matter, but that hasn't happened.
@Brixian59 is one of the best posters on this board. People just don't like their posts because they are unapologetically "Labour".
No, people find them tiresome because they are unremitttingly biased and partisan which reduces their conversational value to zero. There is an utter lack of self awareness. He is the political equivalent of Leon but without the comedy value.
And I say this even though I sometimes agree with him.
There is also a repetitive overcurrent of "it's Morgan or one of his minions doing party spin" in some of the responses to Brixian. That's also tiresome and, bluntly, not nice. Playing the person not the ball also doesn't add much value to the conversation.
Starmer reportedly considering telling his supporters to back Streeting and nominate him for leader to stop a Burnham coronation if Burnham launches a leadership challenge Daily Mail now reporting
Starmer reportedly considering telling his supporters to back Streeting and nominate him for leader to stop a Burnham coronation if Burnham launches a leadership challenge Daily Mail now reporting
Not sure why jumping on @Brixian59 is allowed but jumping on others is not. Surely it can't be politics related
Don't be so precious.
Disagreeing with anyone has always been allowed, even if its many people disagreeing with the same person.
Anyone who holds extreme or unpopular views can have many people simultaneously disagreeing with them. I frequently have and have never complained about being jumped on, nor had people rushing to my defence on that ground - not that I would want it either. Many people here have, anyone with strong views that goes against the mainstream tends to.
Turning personal and abusive is another matter, but that hasn't happened.
@Brixian59 is one of the best posters on this board. People just don't like their posts because they are unapologetically "Labour".
No, people find them tiresome because they are unremitttingly biased and partisan which reduces their conversational value to zero. There is an utter lack of self awareness. He is the political equivalent of Leon but without the comedy value.
And I say this even though I sometimes agree with him.
Aren't lots of posters here biased and partisan?
I'd just like to place it on record that I am very neutral and always hold opinion I cannot disagree with.
But relative to Carney's performance in Canada or Trump himself in the USA, it's not coming down fast enough.
It's quite possible we could be in a situation of next emigration within a year or two. That's not the sign of a successful economy.
That's just outdated dogma.
We consistently had net emigration during the industrial revolution and most of the post-war period up to the 1990s. China has consistently had net emigration during its rise to global pre-eminence. Eastern European countries had net emigration while they were catching up fast with the West.
The best way to measure our economic prospects isn't the number of Deliveroo riders we find employment for.
Your dogma is the outdated one, based as it is on 1970s Malthusianism. In the industrial revolution we also had massively positive fertility and natural population growth. In the post war years we had a baby boom, until the 1970s which few people these days would argue was a demographic golden age.
The world we're in now is very different. Fertility is through the floor. Natural population growth is negative. Britain, and Europe, seems destined to become continent versions of Japan, or Belarus. As does most of East Asia.
If the whole world is heading that way, it shows the futility of trying to avoid facing up to difficult demographic questions by using immigration as a stop gap. Immigrants get old too, and the political destabilisation isn't worth it.
Cause and effect though. Immigration may or may not be a cause of success (the US experience would suggest it can be) but it's certainly a symptom.
Why is "everyone moving to Dubai"? Why are Singapore house prices a problem? Why does Paris still grow while the Auvergne empties?
If we get net emigration it means people don't want to live here anymore, and that's kind of a bad sign.
Not sure why jumping on @Brixian59 is allowed but jumping on others is not. Surely it can't be politics related
Don't be so precious.
Disagreeing with anyone has always been allowed, even if its many people disagreeing with the same person.
Anyone who holds extreme or unpopular views can have many people simultaneously disagreeing with them. I frequently have and have never complained about being jumped on, nor had people rushing to my defence on that ground - not that I would want it either. Many people here have, anyone with strong views that goes against the mainstream tends to.
Turning personal and abusive is another matter, but that hasn't happened.
@Brixian59 is one of the best posters on this board. People just don't like their posts because they are unapologetically "Labour".
No, people find them tiresome because they are unremitttingly biased and partisan which reduces their conversational value to zero. There is an utter lack of self awareness. He is the political equivalent of Leon but without the comedy value.
And I say this even though I sometimes agree with him.
There is also a repetitive overcurrent of "it's Morgan or one of his minions doing party spin" in some of the responses to Brixian. That's also tiresome and, bluntly, not nice. Playing the person not the ball also doesn't add much value to the conversation.
There are some people with whom playing the ball is pointless because they are playing badminton.
But relative to Carney's performance in Canada or Trump himself in the USA, it's not coming down fast enough.
It's quite possible we could be in a situation of next emigration within a year or two. That's not the sign of a successful economy.
That's just outdated dogma.
We consistently had net emigration during the industrial revolution and most of the post-war period up to the 1990s. China has consistently had net emigration during its rise to global pre-eminence. Eastern European countries had net emigration while they were catching up fast with the West.
The best way to measure our economic prospects isn't the number of Deliveroo riders we find employment for.
Although there is the mystery of how immigrants qualify if they are Deliveroo / Just Eat riders..
If you find that mysterious, I have a selection of bridges over the Thames I can sell you. Very reasonable prices.
I said it was a mystery - i didn't say I found it mysterious.
Heck I've seen but not been able to identify firms charging £500 a month on top of the initial work visa fee to ensure the worker looks employed and that the NI is paid. Yes I see the flaws in that plan..
It’s not a mystery. Selling visas, in various ways, is a profitable business.
Not sure why jumping on @Brixian59 is allowed but jumping on others is not. Surely it can't be politics related
Don't be so precious.
Disagreeing with anyone has always been allowed, even if its many people disagreeing with the same person.
Anyone who holds extreme or unpopular views can have many people simultaneously disagreeing with them. I frequently have and have never complained about being jumped on, nor had people rushing to my defence on that ground - not that I would want it either. Many people here have, anyone with strong views that goes against the mainstream tends to.
Turning personal and abusive is another matter, but that hasn't happened.
@Brixian59 is one of the best posters on this board. People just don't like their posts because they are unapologetically "Labour".
No, people find them tiresome because they are unremitttingly biased and partisan which reduces their conversational value to zero. There is an utter lack of self awareness. He is the political equivalent of Leon but without the comedy value.
And I say this even though I sometimes agree with him.
Aren't lots of posters here biased and partisan?
Everyone is biased, most are not unremittingly partisan.
Almost every Labour supporter, and almost every Tory supporter, is willing to call out their party when they disagree with it. They have their own principles.
Unremittingly towing the party line and taking every opportunity to say [other parties leader] is shit on repeat is thankfully rare.
Not sure why jumping on @Brixian59 is allowed but jumping on others is not. Surely it can't be politics related
Don't be so precious.
Disagreeing with anyone has always been allowed, even if its many people disagreeing with the same person.
Anyone who holds extreme or unpopular views can have many people simultaneously disagreeing with them. I frequently have and have never complained about being jumped on, nor had people rushing to my defence on that ground - not that I would want it either. Many people here have, anyone with strong views that goes against the mainstream tends to.
Turning personal and abusive is another matter, but that hasn't happened.
@Brixian59 is one of the best posters on this board. People just don't like their posts because they are unapologetically "Labour".
No, people find them tiresome because they are unremitttingly biased and partisan which reduces their conversational value to zero. There is an utter lack of self awareness. He is the political equivalent of Leon but without the comedy value.
And I say this even though I sometimes agree with him.
Aren't lots of posters here biased and partisan?
Everyone is biased, most are not unremittingly partisan.
Almost every Labour supporter, and almost every Tory supporter, is willing to call out their party when they disagree with it. They have their own principles.
Unremittingly towing the party line and taking every opportunity to say [other parties leader] is shit on repeat is thankfully rare.
Not sure why jumping on @Brixian59 is allowed but jumping on others is not. Surely it can't be politics related
Don't be so precious.
Disagreeing with anyone has always been allowed, even if its many people disagreeing with the same person.
Anyone who holds extreme or unpopular views can have many people simultaneously disagreeing with them. I frequently have and have never complained about being jumped on, nor had people rushing to my defence on that ground - not that I would want it either. Many people here have, anyone with strong views that goes against the mainstream tends to.
Turning personal and abusive is another matter, but that hasn't happened.
@Brixian59 is one of the best posters on this board. People just don't like their posts because they are unapologetically "Labour".
No, people find them tiresome because they are unremitttingly biased and partisan which reduces their conversational value to zero. There is an utter lack of self awareness. He is the political equivalent of Leon but without the comedy value.
And I say this even though I sometimes agree with him.
Aren't lots of posters here biased and partisan?
Of course but the best - or even the moderately good - also accept they are sometimes wrong and that everything is not black and white. Hence the reason I used the word unremitting
Burnham will quickly emerge as the most compelling figure in Western politics other than Trump.
He will be fresher than Macron, have a stronger domestic position than Merz, run a more important country than Carney and have more international relevance than Meloni.
If he plays his cards right, he could be PM for a decade.
Burnham would also be the most leftwing leader of the G7. Ten years of Burnham as PM and the UK would be heading towards socialism
But relative to Carney's performance in Canada or Trump himself in the USA, it's not coming down fast enough.
It's quite possible we could be in a situation of next emigration within a year or two. That's not the sign of a successful economy.
That's just outdated dogma.
We consistently had net emigration during the industrial revolution and most of the post-war period up to the 1990s. China has consistently had net emigration during its rise to global pre-eminence. Eastern European countries had net emigration while they were catching up fast with the West.
The best way to measure our economic prospects isn't the number of Deliveroo riders we find employment for.
Your dogma is the outdated one, based as it is on 1970s Malthusianism. In the industrial revolution we also had massively positive fertility and natural population growth. In the post war years we had a baby boom, until the 1970s which few people these days would argue was a demographic golden age.
The world we're in now is very different. Fertility is through the floor. Natural population growth is negative. Britain, and Europe, seems destined to become continent versions of Japan, or Belarus. As does most of East Asia.
If the whole world is heading that way, it shows the futility of trying to avoid facing up to difficult demographic questions by using immigration as a stop gap. Immigrants get old too, and the political destabilisation isn't worth it.
Cause and effect though. Immigration may or may not be a cause of success (the US experience would suggest it can be) but it's certainly a symptom.
Why is "everyone moving to Dubai"? Why are Singapore house prices a problem? Why does Paris still grow while the Auvergne empties?
If we get net emigration it means people don't want to live here anymore, and that's kind of a bad sign.
It's telling that your examples are all cities. We don't need net immigration at the national level to have increasing urbanisation and the agglomeration effects that come from successful cities. It's a national tragedy that London's resurgence has been accompanied by a reduction in the native British population of the capital.
Tories and Farage called for a fall in NET MIGRATION for years.
Decent chance Labour achieves net emigration next year.
Net emigration being the goal was never mentioned before Lowe got big on X, started going on about mass deportations, and fell out with Farage. Net migration in the tens of thousands was the supposed end point throughout the entire Tories' duration in office.
Net migration in the tens of thousands was a policy of Cameron/May, not throughout the entire Tories duration in office.
Boris abolished that ambition.
And yet the policy is back. As the Good Book says, As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.
I suppose the question is- what is the end in mind of such a policy?
Is it just about numbers? That feels oddly desicated. (Which is what we might all be in the south of the UK by Thursday.)
Is it pressure on public services? Perhaps, though there are bigger issues there, and in some ways, cutting migration threatens to make things worse. And if your worry is housing, there's One Weird Trick they don't want you to know that solves it.
Is it not liking seeing different faces, hearing different accents on the streets? I'd like to say tough luck. After all, I'm not a native of the London/Essex borderlands, do I have to move back to South Hampshire? But it's also a really tough hurdle to cross- resetting every town to zero incomers is unimaginable... isn't it?
Speaking personally (and I appreciate that I live in Scotland which is largely empty and has none of the pressures of the south of England or London), I want immigrants with skills, the drive and ambition to make something of themselves in this country. I don't want Just Eat drivers, I don't want large families on benefits claiming our supplies of public sector housing, I don't particularly want Primary Schools with 15+ languages and so many children where English is not their first language slowing the class down. I don't want men from theocratic societies that treat women as chattels. I want people who want to integrate and add to our society, not keep apart from it.
In short, I have no great problem with immigration, I do have problems with those not interested in integration.
Today's Just Eat drink very is tomorrow's industrialist. Or, more likely, his children are.
I always remember a conversation with a taxi driver in Kutaisi in Georgia. First surprise was he owned a sunflower seed processing factory, quite a large one turning over a couple of million Euro equivalent a year. I asked him why he drove too. Because he enjoyed it, and to top up his income, he replied. Besides, he said, his uncle had given the factory to him and was now a taxi driver.
Here in Kutaisi? No. In New York. He'd handed over the business and headed to Mexico where, spending his savings with traffickers, he'd crossed the border into the US at night and was now driving Ubers in Brooklyn.
Meanwhile here on the night sleeper from Izmir to Ankara, we've broken down. In traditional style there have been zero announcements. Just sitting stationary on the track for an hour. I only found out we'd broken down when I asked the man at the buffet car for a kofte and he wrote on Google translate "the train has broken down so I cannot cook".
Broken down also means the a/c is out of action. Nobody seems particularly bothered, yet.
You've still got Internet access though, which is a bit ironic
Burnham will quickly emerge as the most compelling figure in Western politics other than Trump.
He will be fresher than Macron, have a stronger domestic position than Merz, run a more important country than Carney and have more international relevance than Meloni.
If he plays his cards right, he could be PM for a decade.
Burnham would also be the most leftwing leader of the G7. Ten years of Burnham as PM and the UK would be heading towards socialism
But relative to Carney's performance in Canada or Trump himself in the USA, it's not coming down fast enough.
It's quite possible we could be in a situation of next emigration within a year or two. That's not the sign of a successful economy.
That's just outdated dogma.
We consistently had net emigration during the industrial revolution and most of the post-war period up to the 1990s. China has consistently had net emigration during its rise to global pre-eminence. Eastern European countries had net emigration while they were catching up fast with the West.
The best way to measure our economic prospects isn't the number of Deliveroo riders we find employment for.
Your dogma is the outdated one, based as it is on 1970s Malthusianism. In the industrial revolution we also had massively positive fertility and natural population growth. In the post war years we had a baby boom, until the 1970s which few people these days would argue was a demographic golden age.
The world we're in now is very different. Fertility is through the floor. Natural population growth is negative. Britain, and Europe, seems destined to become continent versions of Japan, or Belarus. As does most of East Asia.
If the whole world is heading that way, it shows the futility of trying to avoid facing up to difficult demographic questions by using immigration as a stop gap. Immigrants get old too, and the political destabilisation isn't worth it.
Cause and effect though. Immigration may or may not be a cause of success (the US experience would suggest it can be) but it's certainly a symptom.
Why is "everyone moving to Dubai"? Why are Singapore house prices a problem? Why does Paris still grow while the Auvergne empties?
If we get net emigration it means people don't want to live here anymore, and that's kind of a bad sign.
It's telling that your examples are all cities. We don't need net immigration at the national level to have increasing urbanisation and the agglomeration effects that come from successful cities. It's a national tragedy that London's resurgence has been accompanied by a reduction in the native British population of the capital.
Has it though? Or do you really mean a reduction in the proportion?
I've just spent 3 days in Istanbul, formerly Constantinople. Then 2 days in Izmir, formerly Smyrna. Absolute case studies in places that were once global, multilingual, multi-faith melting pots and are now, for all their charms, rather boringly mono-cultural.
Constantinople was THE world city. Now it's just a very interesting Turkish city. Smyrna was the finest city of the Aegean, majority Greek. Then thanks to misplaced Greek irredentism and a population exchange (ethnic cleansing) deal in the 1920s it's just Turkish Izmir with a few old buildings that escaped the pogroms.
Not sure why jumping on @Brixian59 is allowed but jumping on others is not. Surely it can't be politics related
Don't be so precious.
Disagreeing with anyone has always been allowed, even if its many people disagreeing with the same person.
Anyone who holds extreme or unpopular views can have many people simultaneously disagreeing with them. I frequently have and have never complained about being jumped on, nor had people rushing to my defence on that ground - not that I would want it either. Many people here have, anyone with strong views that goes against the mainstream tends to.
Turning personal and abusive is another matter, but that hasn't happened.
@Brixian59 is one of the best posters on this board. People just don't like their posts because they are unapologetically "Labour".
No, people find them tiresome because they are unremitttingly biased and partisan which reduces their conversational value to zero. There is an utter lack of self awareness. He is the political equivalent of Leon but without the comedy value.
And I say this even though I sometimes agree with him.
Someone in campaigning mode is tiresome. Most of us have very set political opinions and hinterland, and debate from those starting points. I try to acknowledge my biases and separate what I want to happen from what I think will happen. Others choose to use this as a campaigning platform, and debating with them saps energy because they will dissemble or misrepresent your comments if it suits their talking point.
Meanwhile here on the night sleeper from Izmir to Ankara, we've broken down. In traditional style there have been zero announcements. Just sitting stationary on the track for an hour. I only found out we'd broken down when I asked the man at the buffet car for a kofte and he wrote on Google translate "the train has broken down so I cannot cook".
Broken down also means the a/c is out of action. Nobody seems particularly bothered, yet.
You've still got Internet access though, which is a bit ironic
Mobile data thanks to an e-sim
And we're off again. They got us a new locomotive. Or we were off for 2 minutes but have stopped again. 1000km of this to come
Not sure why jumping on @Brixian59 is allowed but jumping on others is not. Surely it can't be politics related
Don't be so precious.
Disagreeing with anyone has always been allowed, even if its many people disagreeing with the same person.
Anyone who holds extreme or unpopular views can have many people simultaneously disagreeing with them. I frequently have and have never complained about being jumped on, nor had people rushing to my defence on that ground - not that I would want it either. Many people here have, anyone with strong views that goes against the mainstream tends to.
Turning personal and abusive is another matter, but that hasn't happened.
@Brixian59 is one of the best posters on this board. People just don't like their posts because they are unapologetically "Labour".
No, people find them tiresome because they are unremitttingly biased and partisan which reduces their conversational value to zero. There is an utter lack of self awareness. He is the political equivalent of Leon but without the comedy value.
And I say this even though I sometimes agree with him.
Aren't lots of posters here biased and partisan?
Yes but I think most posters make a valiant effort to tone down their own partisanship because they know there isn't much point in everyone just effectively shouting at each other according to their own political views. That's why PB is one of the best places for political discussion.
Watching some old sitcoms, were they all mostly terrible actors or was it just style of direction? Old man in Steptoe and son is either bloody awful or a good actor told to mug like a 5 year old.
Wilfred Bramble (Steptoe) was by many accounts an often well-oiled alcoholic. Harry H Corbett aspired to being a serious actor and hated being typecast and trapped in this worldwide hit.
In general, though, that generation of actor had grown up on the stage where subtlety was barely an option, and then in small-screen television where often they'd be framed in close-up or very small, which combined to give the appearance of mugging.
Watching some old sitcoms, were they all mostly terrible actors or was it just style of direction? Old man in Steptoe and son is either bloody awful or a good actor told to mug like a 5 year old.
Wilfred Bramble (Steptoe) was by many accounts an often well-oiled alcoholic. Harry H Corbett aspired to being a serious actor and hated being typecast and trapped in this worldwide hit.
In general, though, that generation of actor had grown up on the stage where subtlety was barely an option, and then in small-screen television where often they'd be framed in close-up or very small, which combined to give the appearance of mugging.
Bramble was also very suave and dressed superbly.
Old sitcom actors were decent actors and appeared, by and large, in a range of productions. There were the exceptions but generally decent actors.
Starmer reportedly considering telling his supporters to back Streeting and nominate him for leader to stop a Burnham coronation if Burnham launches a leadership challenge Daily Mail now reporting
But relative to Carney's performance in Canada or Trump himself in the USA, it's not coming down fast enough.
It's quite possible we could be in a situation of next emigration within a year or two. That's not the sign of a successful economy.
That's just outdated dogma.
We consistently had net emigration during the industrial revolution and most of the post-war period up to the 1990s. China has consistently had net emigration during its rise to global pre-eminence. Eastern European countries had net emigration while they were catching up fast with the West.
The best way to measure our economic prospects isn't the number of Deliveroo riders we find employment for.
Your dogma is the outdated one, based as it is on 1970s Malthusianism. In the industrial revolution we also had massively positive fertility and natural population growth. In the post war years we had a baby boom, until the 1970s which few people these days would argue was a demographic golden age.
The world we're in now is very different. Fertility is through the floor. Natural population growth is negative. Britain, and Europe, seems destined to become continent versions of Japan, or Belarus. As does most of East Asia.
If the whole world is heading that way, it shows the futility of trying to avoid facing up to difficult demographic questions by using immigration as a stop gap. Immigrants get old too, and the political destabilisation isn't worth it.
Cause and effect though. Immigration may or may not be a cause of success (the US experience would suggest it can be) but it's certainly a symptom.
Why is "everyone moving to Dubai"? Why are Singapore house prices a problem? Why does Paris still grow while the Auvergne empties?
If we get net emigration it means people don't want to live here anymore, and that's kind of a bad sign.
It's telling that your examples are all cities. We don't need net immigration at the national level to have increasing urbanisation and the agglomeration effects that come from successful cities. It's a national tragedy that London's resurgence has been accompanied by a reduction in the native British population of the capital.
Has it though? Or do you really mean a reduction in the proportion?
I've just spent 3 days in Istanbul. Then 2 days in Izmir, formerly Smyrna. Absolute case studies in places that were once global, multilingual, multi-faith 🫠 Ng pots and are now, for all their charms, rather boringly mono-cultural.
Constantinople was THE world city. Now it's just a very interesting Turkish city. Smyrna was the finest city of the Aegean, majority Greek. Then thanks to misplaced Greek irredentism and a population exchange (ethnic cleansing) deal in the 1920s it's just Turkish Izmir with a few old buildings that escaped the pogroms.
Yes it has and quite significantly. Look at the data on internal migration flows.
Burnham will quickly emerge as the most compelling figure in Western politics other than Trump.
He will be fresher than Macron, have a stronger domestic position than Merz, run a more important country than Carney and have more international relevance than Meloni.
If he plays his cards right, he could be PM for a decade.
Burnham would also be the most leftwing leader of the G7. Ten years of Burnham as PM and the UK would be heading towards socialism
Have you been to Manchester lately?
If one good thing comes out of a Burnham premiership, it is surely that Britain has to build and invest in its infrastructure. I've been very impressed by the growth in Manchester over the past decade plus, as people like yourself, Rochdale and Cookie will likely testify.
We need this kind of development right across all regions, unlock the tools to get the north of England, Scotland, Wales etc growing, and to spread wealth across the UK, rather than keep it bottled in London and the home counties.
Who he picks as Chancellor will be crucial to this.
Burnham will quickly emerge as the most compelling figure in Western politics other than Trump.
He will be fresher than Macron, have a stronger domestic position than Merz, run a more important country than Carney and have more international relevance than Meloni.
If he plays his cards right, he could be PM for a decade.
Burnham would also be the most leftwing leader of the G7. Ten years of Burnham as PM and the UK would be heading towards socialism
Have you been to Manchester lately?
It is misleading to suggest that Burnham will be a left wing leader not least because Manchester shows how he brings together politicians of all parties, businesses and trade unions in a very successful City
I have said it before, and will repeat it, he is very collegiate and I expect a very different style of leadership and more consensus on the big issues of the day across the HOC
The public are tired of anger and division and just want evidence the politicians get it and Burnham may well cut through
I am not tribal on this and wish him success though I do think the Andy v Kemi show will be very different
I may be wrong but I really hope to see the end to so much 'hate' to the Jewish and Muslim communities but also a fair and sensible immigration policy which Mahmood seems to understand so much so Kemi wants to work with her
Farage, Lowe and Polanski need putting back in their boxes over the next 3 years
But relative to Carney's performance in Canada or Trump himself in the USA, it's not coming down fast enough.
It's quite possible we could be in a situation of next emigration within a year or two. That's not the sign of a successful economy.
That's just outdated dogma.
We consistently had net emigration during the industrial revolution and most of the post-war period up to the 1990s. China has consistently had net emigration during its rise to global pre-eminence. Eastern European countries had net emigration while they were catching up fast with the West.
The best way to measure our economic prospects isn't the number of Deliveroo riders we find employment for.
Your dogma is the outdated one, based as it is on 1970s Malthusianism. In the industrial revolution we also had massively positive fertility and natural population growth. In the post war years we had a baby boom, until the 1970s which few people these days would argue was a demographic golden age.
The world we're in now is very different. Fertility is through the floor. Natural population growth is negative. Britain, and Europe, seems destined to become continent versions of Japan, or Belarus. As does most of East Asia.
If the whole world is heading that way, it shows the futility of trying to avoid facing up to difficult demographic questions by using immigration as a stop gap. Immigrants get old too, and the political destabilisation isn't worth it.
Cause and effect though. Immigration may or may not be a cause of success (the US experience would suggest it can be) but it's certainly a symptom.
Why is "everyone moving to Dubai"? Why are Singapore house prices a problem? Why does Paris still grow while the Auvergne empties?
If we get net emigration it means people don't want to live here anymore, and that's kind of a bad sign.
It's telling that your examples are all cities. We don't need net immigration at the national level to have increasing urbanisation and the agglomeration effects that come from successful cities. It's a national tragedy that London's resurgence has been accompanied by a reduction in the native British population of the capital.
Has it though? Or do you really mean a reduction in the proportion?
I've just spent 3 days in Istanbul. Then 2 days in Izmir, formerly Smyrna. Absolute case studies in places that were once global, multilingual, multi-faith 🫠 Ng pots and are now, for all their charms, rather boringly mono-cultural.
Constantinople was THE world city. Now it's just a very interesting Turkish city. Smyrna was the finest city of the Aegean, majority Greek. Then thanks to misplaced Greek irredentism and a population exchange (ethnic cleansing) deal in the 1920s it's just Turkish Izmir with a few old buildings that escaped the pogroms.
Yes it has and quite significantly. Look at the data on internal migration flows.
If it has, then that tells you all about our demographic structure. And also about generational migration. It's nothing new that the young migrate to cities and families and the middle aged head to the suburbs and hinterland.
I'm an example of "native population" who moved to inner London in 1998 and has remained. By your moral measures we should be lauded as ethnic champs.
But relative to Carney's performance in Canada or Trump himself in the USA, it's not coming down fast enough.
It's quite possible we could be in a situation of next emigration within a year or two. That's not the sign of a successful economy.
That's just outdated dogma.
We consistently had net emigration during the industrial revolution and most of the post-war period up to the 1990s. China has consistently had net emigration during its rise to global pre-eminence. Eastern European countries had net emigration while they were catching up fast with the West.
The best way to measure our economic prospects isn't the number of Deliveroo riders we find employment for.
Your dogma is the outdated one, based as it is on 1970s Malthusianism. In the industrial revolution we also had massively positive fertility and natural population growth. In the post war years we had a baby boom, until the 1970s which few people these days would argue was a demographic golden age.
The world we're in now is very different. Fertility is through the floor. Natural population growth is negative. Britain, and Europe, seems destined to become continent versions of Japan, or Belarus. As does most of East Asia.
If the whole world is heading that way, it shows the futility of trying to avoid facing up to difficult demographic questions by using immigration as a stop gap. Immigrants get old too, and the political destabilisation isn't worth it.
Cause and effect though. Immigration may or may not be a cause of success (the US experience would suggest it can be) but it's certainly a symptom.
Why is "everyone moving to Dubai"? Why are Singapore house prices a problem? Why does Paris still grow while the Auvergne empties?
If we get net emigration it means people don't want to live here anymore, and that's kind of a bad sign.
It's telling that your examples are all cities. We don't need net immigration at the national level to have increasing urbanisation and the agglomeration effects that come from successful cities. It's a national tragedy that London's resurgence has been accompanied by a reduction in the native British population of the capital.
Has it though? Or do you really mean a reduction in the proportion?
I've just spent 3 days in Istanbul. Then 2 days in Izmir, formerly Smyrna. Absolute case studies in places that were once global, multilingual, multi-faith 🫠 Ng pots and are now, for all their charms, rather boringly mono-cultural.
Constantinople was THE world city. Now it's just a very interesting Turkish city. Smyrna was the finest city of the Aegean, majority Greek. Then thanks to misplaced Greek irredentism and a population exchange (ethnic cleansing) deal in the 1920s it's just Turkish Izmir with a few old buildings that escaped the pogroms.
Yes it has and quite significantly. Look at the data on internal migration flows.
If it has, then that tells you all about our demographic structure. And also about generational migration. It's nothing new that the young migrate to cities and families and the middle aged head to the suburbs and hinterland.
I'm an example of "native population" who moved to inner London in 1998 and has remained. By your moral measures we should be lauded as ethnic champs.
No, you are an example of "I'm alright Jack" selfishness. You moved at exactly the right time to benefit from the uplift in asset prices that made it much harder for the next generation to follow in your footsteps. And why would you want them to when their absence just means you get to enjoy a more multicultural city?
The smart political move is to stay distant from Trump, not suck up to him as Starmer did. Starmer was using the post WW2 playbook but its out of date and he had no original thoughts on the matter (as usual). I think Burnham will see where the votes are.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 37m This is the definitive moment of Starmer's political career: demanding everyone be locked up in our houses for months extra on the basis of epically wrong fantasy estimates about Covid, whilst massively condemning Johnson for wanting to set us free.
My week 1 wishlist for Burnham, taking into account he will be a Labour PM with support to shore up, and stuff like flat CT/LVT will take a bit longer to put together:
Highly aggressive and direct military response to the arson attacks on Starmer and his friends/family. We can't tolerate this, it's significantly worse than Salisbury IMO.
Declare that the new fiscal rule is primary surplus at 1% of GDP in each year. To start in 2027-28.
Announce Bee Networks for all English cities
Withdraw all Terrorist Act charges from peaceful protestors. Apologise to those arrested. Perhaps recognise the Edinburgh attack for what it is?
Move all student loans to CPI + 30-year term.
I appreciate that would annoy some here but if he announced all that on the steps of Downing Street you'd get a real sense of momentum. Item 2 would pay for itself in just lowering borrowing costs.
The irony of the header is that no one played Trump better than Starmer - (other than Bibi) and fundamental to that strategy was Mandelson and all the dirt he has on Trump.
Farage or Badenoch would by now have us as the 52nd State utterly subservient and at War with Iran.
Any thought of either of them ever being PM is as dangerous as the Mail and Express wanting Oswald Moseley as PM in 1940.
Carney was right in the speech of the year. Middle power countries do not help themselves by humbling themselves before the super powers. They do much better when they stand together rather than asking for favours from the table. As he put it in a memorable sentence: "Middle powers must act together because if we're not at the table, we're on the menu."
Its a lesson that Starmer (and Blair) have not learned.
Meloni is milking her robust pushback to Trump currently, for all it’s worth
The smart political move is to stay distant from Trump, not suck up to him as Starmer did. Starmer was using the post WW2 playbook but its out of date and he had no original thoughts on the matter (as usual). I think Burnham will see where the votes are.
By the time Burnham gets into No 10 (early to mid autumn?) Trump will be on the brink of being a lame duck final two year POTUS if the mid-terms go how it looks at the moment.
Not sure why jumping on @Brixian59 is allowed but jumping on others is not. Surely it can't be politics related
S/he’s the 1.0 beta version of the prototype Labour Party HQ auto-posting social media bot, so we don’t have to worry about he/she/it taking anything personally.
I am baffled by the fact there seems to be no limit to the number of Turkish barbers a town seems to be able to take. With new ones opening all the time.
Even more strange: there's almost always someone in all of them.
Burnham will quickly emerge as the most compelling figure in Western politics other than Trump.
He will be fresher than Macron, have a stronger domestic position than Merz, run a more important country than Carney and have more international relevance than Meloni.
If he plays his cards right, he could be PM for a decade.
Burnham would also be the most leftwing leader of the G7. Ten years of Burnham as PM and the UK would be heading towards socialism
and the next thing we know, we would find all our healthcare needs being met for free?
Tories and Farage called for a fall in NET MIGRATION for years.
Decent chance Labour achieves net emigration next year.
Net emigration being the goal was never mentioned before Lowe got big on X, started going on about mass deportations, and fell out with Farage. Net migration in the tens of thousands was the supposed end point throughout the entire Tories' duration in office.
If the voters now change their mind and desire net emigration then you can either accede to their wishes, convince them otherwise, or lose the election.
Telling the voters that they're not allowed to want net emigration because Cameron only promised them net migration in the tens of thousands will lead to the third of those options.
Starmer reportedly considering telling his supporters to back Streeting and nominate him for leader to stop a Burnham coronation if Burnham launches a leadership challenge Daily Mail now reporting
One negative about hot weather is seeing all the tattoos men and women have on their arms and legs. It's like bad human graffiti that never gets cleaned off. It ruins their body, and they're ugly.
My week 1 wishlist for Burnham, taking into account he will be a Labour PM with support to shore up, and stuff like flat CT/LVT will take a bit longer to put together:
Highly aggressive and direct military response to the arson attacks on Starmer and his friends/family. We can't tolerate this, it's significantly worse than Salisbury IMO.
Declare that the new fiscal rule is primary surplus at 1% of GDP in each year. To start in 2027-28.
Announce Bee Networks for all English cities
Withdraw all Terrorist Act charges from peaceful protestors. Apologise to those arrested. Perhaps recognise the Edinburgh attack for what it is?
Move all student loans to CPI + 30-year term.
I appreciate that would annoy some here but if he announced all that on the steps of Downing Street you'd get a real sense of momentum. Item 2 would pay for itself in just lowering borrowing costs.
On 4 Starmer already has called it out as anti Muslim hate
Burnham will quickly emerge as the most compelling figure in Western politics other than Trump.
He will be fresher than Macron, have a stronger domestic position than Merz, run a more important country than Carney and have more international relevance than Meloni.
If he plays his cards right, he could be PM for a decade.
Burnham would also be the most leftwing leader of the G7. Ten years of Burnham as PM and the UK would be heading towards socialism
Have you been to Manchester lately?
If one good thing comes out of a Burnham premiership, it is surely that Britain has to build and invest in its infrastructure. I've been very impressed by the growth in Manchester over the past decade plus, as people like yourself, Rochdale and Cookie will likely testify.
We need this kind of development right across all regions, unlock the tools to get the north of England, Scotland, Wales etc growing, and to spread wealth across the UK, rather than keep it bottled in London and the home counties.
Who he picks as Chancellor will be crucial to this.
One thing it hasn't been driven by is left wing Socialism.
£30 locked in on my bet at 41/1 on Starmer exit by end of this quarter
Good luck but anyone tempted to follow you in should check the terms because it is most likely the date a new leader (and PM) is confirmed, and not the date Starmer announces his resignation.
Comments
Tories and Farage called for a fall in NET MIGRATION for years.
Decent chance Labour achieves net emigration next year.
As he put it in a memorable sentence: "Middle powers must act together because if we're not at the table, we're on the menu."
Its a lesson that Starmer (and Blair) have not learned.
Sunak's actions rectified the stupidity
I have been meaning to say that nearly all our windfarms were built by the conservatives in those so called wasted years
Disagreeing with anyone has always been allowed, even if its many people disagreeing with the same person.
Anyone who holds extreme or unpopular views can have many people simultaneously disagreeing with them. I frequently have and have never complained about being jumped on, nor had people rushing to my defence on that ground - not that I would want it either. Many people here have, anyone with strong views that goes against the mainstream tends to.
Turning personal and abusive is another matter, but that hasn't happened.
Its just that people didn't listen to what he had consistently had to say about migration for a long time.
Boris was always liberal on immigration. He was never a xenophobe. He went into the 2019 election abolishing the tens of thousands claim.
For a while I genuinely thought Farage had cleaned up his act but he can't help but flirt with these sorts of people and their voters. Not fit.
Boris abolished that ambition.
We consistently had net emigration during the industrial revolution and most of the post-war period up to the 1990s. China has consistently had net emigration during its rise to global pre-eminence. Eastern European countries had net emigration while they were catching up fast with the West.
The best way to measure our economic prospects isn't the number of Deliveroo riders we find employment for.
Labour MP suggests Starmer will tomorrow announce he has asked Louise Casey to lead a review into whether he should resign
As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.
I suppose the question is- what is the end in mind of such a policy?
Is it just about numbers? That feels oddly desicated. (Which is what we might all be in the south of the UK by Thursday.)
Is it pressure on public services? Perhaps, though there are bigger issues there, and in some ways, cutting migration threatens to make things worse. And if your worry is housing, there's One Weird Trick they don't want you to know that solves it.
Is it not liking seeing different faces, hearing different accents on the streets? I'd like to say tough luck. After all, I'm not a native of the London/Essex borderlands, do I have to move back to South Hampshire? But it's also a really tough hurdle to cross- resetting every town to zero incomers is unimaginable... isn't it?
The world we're in now is very different. Fertility is through the floor. Natural population growth is negative. Britain, and Europe, seems destined to become continental versions of Japan, or Belarus. As does most of East Asia.
And I say this even though I sometimes agree with him.
Broken down also means the a/c is out of action. Nobody seems particularly bothered, yet.
In short, I have no great problem with immigration, I do have problems with those not interested in integration.
Heck I've seen but not been able to identify firms charging £500 a month on top of the initial work visa fee to ensure the worker looks employed and that the NI is paid. Yes I see the flaws in that plan..
The whole debate is framed around the idea the migration is bad. This needs to change.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1132678795536712&set=a.123843823086886&type=3
https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15916571/Starmer-sabotage-Burnham-backing-Streeting-Labour-leadership.html
Why is "everyone moving to Dubai"? Why are Singapore house prices a problem? Why does Paris still grow while the Auvergne empties?
If we get net emigration it means people don't want to live here anymore, and that's kind of a bad sign.
Almost every Labour supporter, and almost every Tory supporter, is willing to call out their party when they disagree with it. They have their own principles.
Unremittingly towing the party line and taking every opportunity to say [other parties leader] is shit on repeat is thankfully rare.
I always remember a conversation with a taxi driver in Kutaisi in Georgia. First surprise was he owned a sunflower seed processing factory, quite a large one turning over a couple of million Euro equivalent a year. I asked him why he drove too. Because he enjoyed it, and to top up his income, he replied. Besides, he said, his uncle had given the factory to him and was now a taxi driver.
Here in Kutaisi? No. In New York. He'd handed over the business and headed to Mexico where, spending his savings with traffickers, he'd crossed the border into the US at night and was now driving Ubers in Brooklyn.
I've just spent 3 days in Istanbul, formerly Constantinople. Then 2 days in Izmir, formerly Smyrna. Absolute case studies in places that were once global, multilingual, multi-faith melting pots and are now, for all their charms, rather boringly mono-cultural.
Constantinople was THE world city. Now it's just a very interesting Turkish city. Smyrna was the finest city of the Aegean, majority Greek. Then thanks to misplaced Greek irredentism and a population exchange (ethnic cleansing) deal in the 1920s it's just Turkish Izmir with a few old buildings that escaped the pogroms.
And we're off again. They got us a new locomotive. Or we were off for 2 minutes but have stopped again. 1000km of this to come
We need this kind of development right across all regions, unlock the tools to get the north of England, Scotland, Wales etc growing, and to spread wealth across the UK, rather than keep it bottled in London and the home counties.
Who he picks as Chancellor will be crucial to this.
I have said it before, and will repeat it, he is very collegiate and I expect a very different style of leadership and more consensus on the big issues of the day across the HOC
The public are tired of anger and division and just want evidence the politicians get it and Burnham may well cut through
I am not tribal on this and wish him success though I do think the Andy v Kemi show will be very different
I may be wrong but I really hope to see the end to so much 'hate' to the Jewish and Muslim communities but also a fair and sensible immigration policy which Mahmood seems to understand so much so Kemi wants to work with her
Farage, Lowe and Polanski need putting back in their boxes over the next 3 years
I'm an example of "native population" who moved to inner London in 1998 and has remained. By your moral measures we should be lauded as ethnic champs.
@andrew_lilico
·
37m
This is the definitive moment of Starmer's political career: demanding everyone be locked up in our houses for months extra on the basis of epically wrong fantasy estimates about Covid, whilst massively condemning Johnson for wanting to set us free.
https://x.com/andrew_lilico/status/2068747994439077896
- Highly aggressive and direct military response to the arson attacks on Starmer and his friends/family. We can't tolerate this, it's significantly worse than Salisbury IMO.
- Declare that the new fiscal rule is primary surplus at 1% of GDP in each year. To start in 2027-28.
- Announce Bee Networks for all English cities
- Withdraw all Terrorist Act charges from peaceful protestors. Apologise to those arrested. Perhaps recognise the Edinburgh attack for what it is?
- Move all student loans to CPI + 30-year term.
I appreciate that would annoy some here but if he announced all that on the steps of Downing Street you'd get a real sense of momentum. Item 2 would pay for itself in just lowering borrowing costs.Perhaps a smidgen of value for Cape Verde against Uruguay? Perhaps simply lay Uruguay, to back the draw too.
Even more strange: there's almost always someone in all of them.
Hmm.
Another record is going to be not just broken but smashed.
Telling the voters that they're not allowed to want net emigration because Cameron only promised them net migration in the tens of thousands will lead to the third of those options.
I'd say over 90% of them were bloody awful.