Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » PB Video Analysis: How To End Illegal Immigration

SystemSystem Posts: 12,173
edited August 2018 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » PB Video Analysis: How To End Illegal Immigration

OK, call me Amerocentric, but this video is really all about the US and illegal immigration. Specifically, in the US more than 3% of people are illegal immigrants, more than twice the level of the UK, four times that of Switzerland, and something absurd relative to Norway. Now, the US has poor people on its Southern border – but probably fewer than Europe has on its. Mexico is as rich as Turkey, and a lot richer than – for example – Ukraine. So why do so many people head to the US? And what can the government do about it?

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,936
    First, and thanks for the header/video, Rob!
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    This is all good on its own terms, and if you accept the premise that the point of restricting immigration is something to do with labour markets or whatever then current US policy is incredibly weird and inexplicable.

    However, in fact immigration controls are about fucking over brown people, so obviously the people who support them aren't going to want a policy of giving visas to brown people to help you arrest white people.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    OT, good podcast from 538 on the Cohen and Manafort verdicts:
    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/politics-podcast-what-do-cohens-plea-and-manaforts-verdict-mean-for-trump/?ex_cid=story-twitter

    The basic gist is that there't nothing there that would *directly* threaten our "Trump to make it to 2020" bets, but it's opened up a lot of potential lines of attack that might.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,631
    Another good video Robert. Politicians in many countries have a habit of approaching problems from the wrong end, maybe they should all read Smith’s book?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,301

    This is all good on its own terms, and if you accept the premise that the point of restricting immigration is something to do with labour markets or whatever then current US policy is incredibly weird and inexplicable.

    However, in fact immigration controls are about fucking over brown people, so obviously the people who support them aren't going to want a policy of giving visas to brown people to help you arrest white people.

    A not unreasonable point.
    In the US, the ICE pursuit of long term undocumented residents with jobs and established families - in many respects very similar to the Windrush migrants - is pretty strong evidence for this.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Nigelb said:

    This is all good on its own terms, and if you accept the premise that the point of restricting immigration is something to do with labour markets or whatever then current US policy is incredibly weird and inexplicable.

    However, in fact immigration controls are about fucking over brown people, so obviously the people who support them aren't going to want a policy of giving visas to brown people to help you arrest white people.

    A not unreasonable point.
    In the US, the ICE pursuit of long term undocumented residents with jobs and established families - in many respects very similar to the Windrush migrants - is pretty strong evidence for this.
    I’m not sure you can prove that is driven by racism though. Isn’t it more likely to be bureaucrats finding soft targets to achieve their targets?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Nigelb said:
    The Guardians reporting is a little misleading if my understanding is correct. The City has done a bunch of work and is in reasonable shape to manage the risks. The EU has done the square root of bugger all - that has the potential to cause real issues (eg around continuity of derivative / insurance contracts). The frustrating issue is this is all basic stuff that shouldn’t be politically controversial - it just needs to get done. But the EU has been unwilling to engage at all.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,631

    OT, good podcast from 538 on the Cohen and Manafort verdicts:
    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/politics-podcast-what-do-cohens-plea-and-manaforts-verdict-mean-for-trump/?ex_cid=story-twitter

    The basic gist is that there't nothing there that would *directly* threaten our "Trump to make it to 2020" bets, but it's opened up a lot of potential lines of attack that might.

    That’s a good listen, stripped of the partisan political hyperbole that characterises most US media discussions on the subject.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    Also OT but on the US, Joe Biden looking feisty:

    https://twitter.com/attn/status/1030195530494693376
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,301
    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:
    The Guardians reporting is a little misleading if my understanding is correct. The City has done a bunch of work and is in reasonable shape to manage the risks. The EU has done the square root of bugger all - that has the potential to cause real issues (eg around continuity of derivative / insurance contracts). The frustrating issue is this is all basic stuff that shouldn’t be politically controversial - it just needs to get done. But the EU has been unwilling to engage at all.
    But the bottom line is that it still represents a risk, no ?

    I’m not interested in the who’s to blame side, so much as the potential practical effects. Of course it’s still possible to sort this kind of stuff out, but we’re getting very close to the date on which the quite plausible possibility of a no deal Brexit happens.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,237
    Sandpit said:

    OT, good podcast from 538 on the Cohen and Manafort verdicts:
    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/politics-podcast-what-do-cohens-plea-and-manaforts-verdict-mean-for-trump/?ex_cid=story-twitter

    The basic gist is that there't nothing there that would *directly* threaten our "Trump to make it to 2020" bets, but it's opened up a lot of potential lines of attack that might.

    That’s a good listen, stripped of the partisan political hyperbole that characterises most US media discussions on the subject.
    538 is usually pretty sensible.

    They were much more open minded on Trump's chances than other pundits, and they called the Dem hammering in 2016 absolutely right.

    There's a sort of drip, drip, drip right now of news that can only erode the credibility of Trump in the eyes of centrist voters. Trump desperately needs the Dems to pick someone stupid. Which they may well do.

    Or it may be President Hickenlooper.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,631
    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:
    The Guardians reporting is a little misleading if my understanding is correct. The City has done a bunch of work and is in reasonable shape to manage the risks. The EU has done the square root of bugger all - that has the potential to cause real issues (eg around continuity of derivative / insurance contracts). The frustrating issue is this is all basic stuff that shouldn’t be politically controversial - it just needs to get done. But the EU has been unwilling to engage at all.
    It’s the same with aviation. On the regulatory side there’s nothing controversial, it just needs to be done but the EU want to make everything a political negotiating point - so instead of engaging they threaten planes being grounded and licences invalidated. They’re past caring about the damage they will do to their own economies, so long at the UK is seen to be disadvantaged by leaving.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,301
    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is all good on its own terms, and if you accept the premise that the point of restricting immigration is something to do with labour markets or whatever then current US policy is incredibly weird and inexplicable.

    However, in fact immigration controls are about fucking over brown people, so obviously the people who support them aren't going to want a policy of giving visas to brown people to help you arrest white people.

    A not unreasonable point.
    In the US, the ICE pursuit of long term undocumented residents with jobs and established families - in many respects very similar to the Windrush migrants - is pretty strong evidence for this.
    I’m not sure you can prove that is driven by racism though. Isn’t it more likely to be bureaucrats finding soft targets to achieve their targets?
    I’m not claiming to prove anything - just pointing out that the facts tend in one direction.

    And in any event, who is setting the ‘targets’, and to what end ?
    The case for saying that some of the rather controversial consequences of May’s immigration policies were to some extent unintended is a great deal easier to make than for Trump’s.


  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,237
    Sandpit said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:
    The Guardians reporting is a little misleading if my understanding is correct. The City has done a bunch of work and is in reasonable shape to manage the risks. The EU has done the square root of bugger all - that has the potential to cause real issues (eg around continuity of derivative / insurance contracts). The frustrating issue is this is all basic stuff that shouldn’t be politically controversial - it just needs to get done. But the EU has been unwilling to engage at all.
    It’s the same with aviation. On the regulatory side there’s nothing controversial, it just needs to be done but the EU want to make everything a political negotiating point - so instead of engaging they threaten planes being grounded and licences invalidated. They’re past caring about the damage they will do to their own economies, so long at the UK is seen to be disadvantaged by leaving.
    I'm more worried about US-UK aviation right now. Back in June it looked like we would have a sensible bilateral deal, but American and United have lobbied and lobbied and lobbied, and the US has backed away from it.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,631
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    OT, good podcast from 538 on the Cohen and Manafort verdicts:
    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/politics-podcast-what-do-cohens-plea-and-manaforts-verdict-mean-for-trump/?ex_cid=story-twitter

    The basic gist is that there't nothing there that would *directly* threaten our "Trump to make it to 2020" bets, but it's opened up a lot of potential lines of attack that might.

    That’s a good listen, stripped of the partisan political hyperbole that characterises most US media discussions on the subject.
    538 is usually pretty sensible.

    They were much more open minded on Trump's chances than other pundits, and they called the Dem hammering in 2016 absolutely right.

    There's a sort of drip, drip, drip right now of news that can only erode the credibility of Trump in the eyes of centrist voters. Trump desperately needs the Dems to pick someone stupid. Which they may well do.

    Or it may be President Hickenlooper.
    I think that if the GOP see Trump as a drag on other Republicans in the mid terms, they might look at getting rid of him for 2020. The problem is the primary process which, rather like with Corbyn, makes it difficult to get rid of a populist incumbent if they don’t want to go.

    Meanwhile the Democrats show every sign of having learned nothing from last time, they’ll probably run someone who’ll pile up votes in NY and LA, but forget about the large country in between them.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:
    The Guardians reporting is a little misleading if my understanding is correct. The City has done a bunch of work and is in reasonable shape to manage the risks. The EU has done the square root of bugger all - that has the potential to cause real issues (eg around continuity of derivative / insurance contracts). The frustrating issue is this is all basic stuff that shouldn’t be politically controversial - it just needs to get done. But the EU has been unwilling to engage at all.
    But the bottom line is that it still represents a risk, no ?

    I’m not interested in the who’s to blame side, so much as the potential practical effects. Of course it’s still possible to sort this kind of stuff out, but we’re getting very close to the date on which the quite plausible possibility of a no deal Brexit happens.
    It’s not blame - it’s how do you fix it. The Guardian article was positioning it as a failure of the U.K. when - in this case - it isn’t and there’s not much we can do
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,301
    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    OT, good podcast from 538 on the Cohen and Manafort verdicts:
    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/politics-podcast-what-do-cohens-plea-and-manaforts-verdict-mean-for-trump/?ex_cid=story-twitter

    The basic gist is that there't nothing there that would *directly* threaten our "Trump to make it to 2020" bets, but it's opened up a lot of potential lines of attack that might.

    That’s a good listen, stripped of the partisan political hyperbole that characterises most US media discussions on the subject.
    538 is usually pretty sensible.

    They were much more open minded on Trump's chances than other pundits, and they called the Dem hammering in 2016 absolutely right.

    There's a sort of drip, drip, drip right now of news that can only erode the credibility of Trump in the eyes of centrist voters. Trump desperately needs the Dems to pick someone stupid. Which they may well do.

    Or it may be President Hickenlooper.
    I think that if the GOP see Trump as a drag on other Republicans in the mid terms, they might look at getting rid of him for 2020. The problem is the primary process which, rather like with Corbyn, makes it difficult to get rid of a populist incumbent if they don’t want to go.

    Meanwhile the Democrats show every sign of having learned nothing from last time, they’ll probably run someone who’ll pile up votes in NY and LA, but forget about the large country in between them.
    What the Democrats do seem to have learned is the necessity of rebuilding at the state level. I think that likely to be every bit as important for their prospects in 2020 as the identity of the candidate - who doesn’t need to be someone you approve of for them to be able to win. (A point Trump’s election rather well demonstrated.)
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,631
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:
    The Guardians reporting is a little misleading if my understanding is correct. The City has done a bunch of work and is in reasonable shape to manage the risks. The EU has done the square root of bugger all - that has the potential to cause real issues (eg around continuity of derivative / insurance contracts). The frustrating issue is this is all basic stuff that shouldn’t be politically controversial - it just needs to get done. But the EU has been unwilling to engage at all.
    It’s the same with aviation. On the regulatory side there’s nothing controversial, it just needs to be done but the EU want to make everything a political negotiating point - so instead of engaging they threaten planes being grounded and licences invalidated. They’re past caring about the damage they will do to their own economies, so long at the UK is seen to be disadvantaged by leaving.
    I'm more worried about US-UK aviation right now. Back in June it looked like we would have a sensible bilateral deal, but American and United have lobbied and lobbied and lobbied, and the US has backed away from it.
    I think that there’s a deal to be done there once we have sorted out the arrangement with the EU, after all Trump does want some good news on trade rather than the endless negative headlines that are coming. If that fails we can tell him he can come over and meet the Queen again!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,301
    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:
    The Guardians reporting is a little misleading if my understanding is correct. The City has done a bunch of work and is in reasonable shape to manage the risks. The EU has done the square root of bugger all - that has the potential to cause real issues (eg around continuity of derivative / insurance contracts). The frustrating issue is this is all basic stuff that shouldn’t be politically controversial - it just needs to get done. But the EU has been unwilling to engage at all.
    But the bottom line is that it still represents a risk, no ?

    I’m not interested in the who’s to blame side, so much as the potential practical effects. Of course it’s still possible to sort this kind of stuff out, but we’re getting very close to the date on which the quite plausible possibility of a no deal Brexit happens.
    It’s not blame - it’s how do you fix it. The Guardian article was positioning it as a failure of the U.K. when - in this case - it isn’t and there’s not much we can do
    Our failure came in not preparing for this much earlier.
    It’s not as though people haven’t been complaining about the unreasonable behaviour of the EU ever since we held the referendum...
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,814
    edited August 2018
    Good morning, everyone.

    Saw on the news last night that, as well as knocking five noughts off the currency, Maduro decided the way to fight hyperinflation was a 3,000% pay rise.

    But the employed are a small minority now. So they'll have 'lots' of cash, whilst the majority don't, and prices spike even more, which may be affordable for those in work, but will be even worse for those (the large majority) not.

    A cup of coffee is now 25 bolivars. But yesterday the cash withdrawal limit was 10.

    I'm quite skinny, but even I would struggle to survive on two-fifths of a coffee a day.

    Edited extra bit: source for the coffee thingummyjig: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-45262525
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:
    The Guardians reporting is a little misleading if my understanding is correct. The City has done a bunch of work and is in reasonable shape to manage the risks. The EU has done the square root of bugger all - that has the potential to cause real issues (eg around continuity of derivative / insurance contracts). The frustrating issue is this is all basic stuff that shouldn’t be politically controversial - it just needs to get done. But the EU has been unwilling to engage at all.
    But the bottom line is that it still represents a risk, no ?

    I’m not interested in the who’s to blame side, so much as the potential practical effects. Of course it’s still possible to sort this kind of stuff out, but we’re getting very close to the date on which the quite plausible possibility of a no deal Brexit happens.
    It’s not blame - it’s how do you fix it. The Guardian article was positioning it as a failure of the U.K. when - in this case - it isn’t and there’s not much we can do
    Our failure came in not preparing for this much earlier.
    It’s not as though people haven’t been complaining about the unreasonable behaviour of the EU ever since we held the referendum...
    That’s the point

    We’ve done the work

    They haven’t
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,237
    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:
    The Guardians reporting is a little misleading if my understanding is correct. The City has done a bunch of work and is in reasonable shape to manage the risks. The EU has done the square root of bugger all - that has the potential to cause real issues (eg around continuity of derivative / insurance contracts). The frustrating issue is this is all basic stuff that shouldn’t be politically controversial - it just needs to get done. But the EU has been unwilling to engage at all.
    It’s the same with aviation. On the regulatory side there’s nothing controversial, it just needs to be done but the EU want to make everything a political negotiating point - so instead of engaging they threaten planes being grounded and licences invalidated. They’re past caring about the damage they will do to their own economies, so long at the UK is seen to be disadvantaged by leaving.
    I'm more worried about US-UK aviation right now. Back in June it looked like we would have a sensible bilateral deal, but American and United have lobbied and lobbied and lobbied, and the US has backed away from it.
    I think that there’s a deal to be done there once we have sorted out the arrangement with the EU, after all Trump does want some good news on trade rather than the endless negative headlines that are coming. If that fails we can tell him he can come over and meet the Queen again!
    Oh a deal will happen. The question is whether we will buckle and agree some artificial limit on the number (or proportion) of transatlantic flights operated by British carriers.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,677
    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:
    The Guardians reporting is a little misleading if my understanding is correct. The City has done a bunch of work and is in reasonable shape to manage the risks. The EU has done the square root of bugger all - that has the potential to cause real issues (eg around continuity of derivative / insurance contracts). The frustrating issue is this is all basic stuff that shouldn’t be politically controversial - it just needs to get done. But the EU has been unwilling to engage at all.
    It’s the same with aviation. On the regulatory side there’s nothing controversial, it just needs to be done but the EU want to make everything a political negotiating point - so instead of engaging they threaten planes being grounded and licences invalidated. They’re past caring about the damage they will do to their own economies, so long at the UK is seen to be disadvantaged by leaving.
    I'm more worried about US-UK aviation right now. Back in June it looked like we would have a sensible bilateral deal, but American and United have lobbied and lobbied and lobbied, and the US has backed away from it.
    I think that there’s a deal to be done there once we have sorted out the arrangement with the EU, after all Trump does want some good news on trade rather than the endless negative headlines that are coming. If that fails we can tell him he can come over and meet the Queen again!
    A deal that shits on the UK is good news for Trump.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,631
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:
    The Guardians reporting is a little misleading if my understanding is correct. The City has done a bunch of work and is in reasonable shape to manage the risks. The EU has done the square root of bugger all - that has the potential to cause real issues (eg around continuity of derivative / insurance contracts). The frustrating issue is this is all basic stuff that shouldn’t be politically controversial - it just needs to get done. But the EU has been unwilling to engage at all.
    It’s the same with aviation. On the regulatory side there’s nothing controversial, it just needs to be done but the EU want to make everything a political negotiating point - so instead of engaging they threaten planes being grounded and licences invalidated. They’re past caring about the damage they will do to their own economies, so long at the UK is seen to be disadvantaged by leaving.
    I'm more worried about US-UK aviation right now. Back in June it looked like we would have a sensible bilateral deal, but American and United have lobbied and lobbied and lobbied, and the US has backed away from it.
    I think that there’s a deal to be done there once we have sorted out the arrangement with the EU, after all Trump does want some good news on trade rather than the endless negative headlines that are coming. If that fails we can tell him he can come over and meet the Queen again!
    Oh a deal will happen. The question is whether we will buckle and agree some artificial limit on the number (or proportion) of transatlantic flights operated by British carriers.
    Wasn’t the complicating factor that BA are not quite as British as they make out to be (IAG Group owning half a dozen airlines and having Qatar as a major shareholder)?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,628
    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:
    The Guardians reporting is a little misleading if my understanding is correct. The City has done a bunch of work and is in reasonable shape to manage the risks. The EU has done the square root of bugger all - that has the potential to cause real issues (eg around continuity of derivative / insurance contracts). The frustrating issue is this is all basic stuff that shouldn’t be politically controversial - it just needs to get done. But the EU has been unwilling to engage at all.
    But the bottom line is that it still represents a risk, no ?

    I’m not interested in the who’s to blame side, so much as the potential practical effects. Of course it’s still possible to sort this kind of stuff out, but we’re getting very close to the date on which the quite plausible possibility of a no deal Brexit happens.
    It’s not blame - it’s how do you fix it. The Guardian article was positioning it as a failure of the U.K. when - in this case - it isn’t and there’s not much we can do
    Our failure came in not preparing for this much earlier.
    It’s not as though people haven’t been complaining about the unreasonable behaviour of the EU ever since we held the referendum...
    That’s the point

    We’ve done the work

    They haven’t
    And tomorrow's news will be dominated by the media having a collective End-of-the-World-is-Nigh moment about how Britian will collapse into the Atlantic if we have a no-deal Brexit.

    Which is basically sawing off our own legs in the negotiating process.

    You DO the work. You DO contingency planning with the affected industries to mitigate the identified risks. You DO identify how this also fucks over the EU. You share with the heads of state of the EU countries where they get fucked over too.

    You DON'T shout just our exposure from the tree-tops.

    Well, not unless you are trying to provide cover for the world's shittiest Brexit deal.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,814
    F1: Spa markets are up. A few things look interesting but rain is predicted for qualifying so I'd prefer things there to become clearer first.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,237
    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:
    The Guardians reporting is a little misleading if my understanding is correct. The City has done a bunch of work and is in reasonable shape to manage the risks. The EU has done the square root of bugger all - that has the potential to cause real issues (eg around continuity of derivative / insurance contracts). The frustrating issue is this is all basic stuff that shouldn’t be politically controversial - it just needs to get done. But the EU has been unwilling to engage at all.
    It’s the same with aviation. On the regulatory side there’s nothing controversial, it just needs to be done but the EU want to make everything a political negotiating point - so instead of engaging they threaten planes being grounded and licences invalidated. They’re past caring about the damage they will do to their own economies, so long at the UK is seen to be disadvantaged by leaving.
    I'm more worried about US-UK aviation right now. Back in June it looked like we would have a sensible bilateral deal, but American and United have lobbied and lobbied and lobbied, and the US has backed away from it.
    I think that there’s a deal to be done there once we have sorted out the arrangement with the EU, after all Trump does want some good news on trade rather than the endless negative headlines that are coming. If that fails we can tell him he can come over and meet the Queen again!
    Oh a deal will happen. The question is whether we will buckle and agree some artificial limit on the number (or proportion) of transatlantic flights operated by British carriers.
    Wasn’t the complicating factor that BA are not quite as British as they make out to be (IAG Group owning half a dozen airlines and having Qatar as a major shareholder)?
    That's correct. IAG is far from 51% British and the bilateral deal only allows majority owned UK or US firms to fly between us
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,631
    edited August 2018

    F1: Spa markets are up. A few things look interesting but rain is predicted for qualifying so I'd prefer things there to become clearer first.

    It’s Spa, has its own little weather system that’s almost completely unforecastable, even from one end of the circuit to the other or from one minute to the next! One of many reasons why it’s one of the world’s greatest race tracks, never a boring race there.

    Betfair have Vettel at 2.44, Hamilton at 2.9 and everyone else longer than 10, clearly the money there isn’t expecting anything out of the ordinary.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,892
    edited August 2018
    So basically May's policy of a "hostile environment" for illegal immigrants where their employers face swinging fines (typically starting at £10k per employee), have to do the work of recording that they do have the right to work, where the illegal can't open a bank account or get a driving licence or take on a tenancy without the landlord being vulnerable to fines is exactly the right one?

    It's funny how much grief it has given her then, isn't it? And the number of illegals in the UK probably runs to the low hundreds of thousands, not 300. Has it reduced demand? Almost certainly. Has it solved the problem? Nope.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,426
    Meanwhile on the other side of the Pacific, it ain't over yet for Turnbull:

    Malcolm Turnbull: PM battles cabinet rebellion over leadership
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-45266718

    It's quite astonishing to reflect that John Howard was Prime Minister for a decade, and in roughly the same length of time since his defeat they've had no fewer than five Prime Ministers (although that's counting Kevin Rudd twice, of course).

    It's not even just in government as the Opposition leaders have been changing with monotonous regularity as well.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,237
    DavidL said:

    So basically May's policy of a "hostile environment" for illegal immigrants where their employers face swinging fines (typically starting at £10k per employee), have to do the work of recording that they do have the right to work, where the illegal can't open a bank account or get a driving licence or take on a tenancy without the landlord being vulnerable to fines is exactly the right one?

    It's funny how much grief it has given her then, isn't it? And the number of illegals in the UK probably runs to the low hundreds of thousands, not 300. Has it reduced demand? Almost certainly. Has it solved the problem? Nope.

    26 people in the canton of Geneva have gone to jail for employing illegal immigrants this year. I suspect the equivalent number in the whole of the UK is zero.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,814
    Mr. Sandpit, disinclined to go for either of those, seeing how much luck has affected various races this year.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,892
    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    So basically May's policy of a "hostile environment" for illegal immigrants where their employers face swinging fines (typically starting at £10k per employee), have to do the work of recording that they do have the right to work, where the illegal can't open a bank account or get a driving licence or take on a tenancy without the landlord being vulnerable to fines is exactly the right one?

    It's funny how much grief it has given her then, isn't it? And the number of illegals in the UK probably runs to the low hundreds of thousands, not 300. Has it reduced demand? Almost certainly. Has it solved the problem? Nope.

    26 people in the canton of Geneva have gone to jail for employing illegal immigrants this year. I suspect the equivalent number in the whole of the UK is zero.
    That's true but quite a few businesses have ended up closing down unable to pay the administrative fines imposed upon them outwith any court process.

    The other problem this creates is that it drives the illegals underground where they get exploited as sex workers or modern day slaves in appalling conditions. We have taken some steps to incentivise such slaves to report their "employers" but so far this seems to have limited success. Prosecutions are rare. We also have problems with the "self employed", such as the people who clean your car or make deliveries. Proving that they even have an employer is trickier.

    I completely agree the American approach is completely silly but I don't agree there are easy answers either.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,631

    Mr. Sandpit, disinclined to go for either of those, seeing how much luck has affected various races this year.

    Indeed, it’s not quite as unpredictable as Baku but it’s rarely a straightforward race. I think many bets for small stakes is the way to go, in contrast to the Test match where Betfair completely mispriced the result.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,892
    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:
    The Guardians reporting is a little misleading if my understanding is correct. The City has done a bunch of work and is in reasonable shape to manage the risks. The EU has done the square root of bugger all - that has the potential to cause real issues (eg around continuity of derivative / insurance contracts). The frustrating issue is this is all basic stuff that shouldn’t be politically controversial - it just needs to get done. But the EU has been unwilling to engage at all.
    But the bottom line is that it still represents a risk, no ?

    I’m not interested in the who’s to blame side, so much as the potential practical effects. Of course it’s still possible to sort this kind of stuff out, but we’re getting very close to the date on which the quite plausible possibility of a no deal Brexit happens.
    It’s not blame - it’s how do you fix it. The Guardian article was positioning it as a failure of the U.K. when - in this case - it isn’t and there’s not much we can do
    Our failure came in not preparing for this much earlier.
    It’s not as though people haven’t been complaining about the unreasonable behaviour of the EU ever since we held the referendum...
    That’s the point

    We’ve done the work

    They haven’t
    It is quite clear that the EU has breached its obligations to negotiate under Article 50.

    I am sure that the CJE would consider such a complaint completely objectively and impartially.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,426
    DavidL said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:
    The Guardians reporting is a little misleading if my understanding is correct. The City has done a bunch of work and is in reasonable shape to manage the risks. The EU has done the square root of bugger all - that has the potential to cause real issues (eg around continuity of derivative / insurance contracts). The frustrating issue is this is all basic stuff that shouldn’t be politically controversial - it just needs to get done. But the EU has been unwilling to engage at all.
    But the bottom line is that it still represents a risk, no ?

    I’m not interested in the who’s to blame side, so much as the potential practical effects. Of course it’s still possible to sort this kind of stuff out, but we’re getting very close to the date on which the quite plausible possibility of a no deal Brexit happens.
    It’s not blame - it’s how do you fix it. The Guardian article was positioning it as a failure of the U.K. when - in this case - it isn’t and there’s not much we can do
    Our failure came in not preparing for this much earlier.
    It’s not as though people haven’t been complaining about the unreasonable behaviour of the EU ever since we held the referendum...
    That’s the point

    We’ve done the work

    They haven’t
    It is quite clear that the EU has breached its obligations to negotiate under Article 50.

    I am sure that the CJE would consider such a complaint completely objectively and impartially.
    It's possible, but since the EU would ignore an unfavourable ruling there wouldn't be much point to a challenge.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,631
    DavidL said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:
    The Guardians reporting is a little misleading if my understanding is correct. The City has done a bunch of work and is in reasonable shape to manage the risks. The EU has done the square root of bugger all - that has the potential to cause real issues (eg around continuity of derivative / insurance contracts). The frustrating issue is this is all basic stuff that shouldn’t be politically controversial - it just needs to get done. But the EU has been unwilling to engage at all.
    But the bottom line is that it still represents a risk, no ?

    I’m not interested in the who’s to blame side, so much as the potential practical effects. Of course it’s still possible to sort this kind of stuff out, but we’re getting very close to the date on which the quite plausible possibility of a no deal Brexit happens.
    It’s not blame - it’s how do you fix it. The Guardian article was positioning it as a failure of the U.K. when - in this case - it isn’t and there’s not much we can do
    Our failure came in not preparing for this much earlier.
    It’s not as though people haven’t been complaining about the unreasonable behaviour of the EU ever since we held the referendum...
    That’s the point

    We’ve done the work

    They haven’t
    It is quite clear that the EU has breached its obligations to negotiate under Article 50.

    I am sure that the CJE would consider such a complaint completely objectively and impartially.
    I wonder how close we are to the point where we ask for an international arbitrator or the UN to get involved with things like financial services and aviation regulation?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,892
    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:
    The Guardians reporting is a little misleading if my understanding is correct. The City has done a bunch of work and is in reasonable shape to manage the risks. The EU has done the square root of bugger all - that has the potential to cause real issues (eg around continuity of derivative / insurance contracts). The frustrating issue is this is all basic stuff that shouldn’t be politically controversial - it just needs to get done. But the EU has been unwilling to engage at all.
    But the bottom line is that it still represents a risk, no ?

    I’m not interested in the who’s to blame side, so much as the potential practical effects. Of course it’s still possible to sort this kind of stuff out, but we’re getting very close to the date on which the quite plausible possibility of a no deal Brexit happens.
    It’s not blame - it’s how do you fix it. The Guardian article was positioning it as a failure of the U.K. when - in this case - it isn’t and there’s not much we can do
    Our failure came in not preparing for this much earlier.
    It’s not as though people haven’t been complaining about the unreasonable behaviour of the EU ever since we held the referendum...
    That’s the point

    We’ve done the work

    They haven’t
    It is quite clear that the EU has breached its obligations to negotiate under Article 50.

    I am sure that the CJE would consider such a complaint completely objectively and impartially.
    It's possible, but since the EU would ignore an unfavourable ruling there wouldn't be much point to a challenge.
    If I was the government I would lodge the claim for the LOLs.

    It is surprising that anyone still believes being a part of this racket is a good thing.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,507
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:
    The Guardians reporting is a little misleading if my understanding is correct. The City has done a bunch of work and is in reasonable shape to manage the risks. The EU has done the square root of bugger all - that has the potential to cause real issues (eg around continuity of derivative / insurance contracts). The frustrating issue is this is all basic stuff that shouldn’t be politically controversial - it just needs to get done. But the EU has been unwilling to engage at all.
    It’s the same with aviation. On the regulatory side there’s nothing controversial, it just needs to be done but the EU want to make everything a political negotiating point - so instead of engaging they threaten planes being grounded and licences invalidated. They’re past caring about the damage they will do to their own economies, so long at the UK is seen to be disadvantaged by leaving.
    I'm more worried about US-UK aviation right now. Back in June it looked like we would have a sensible bilateral deal, but American and United have lobbied and lobbied and lobbied, and the US has backed away from it.
    I think that there’s a deal to be done there once we have sorted out the arrangement with the EU, after all Trump does want some good news on trade rather than the endless negative headlines that are coming. If that fails we can tell him he can come over and meet the Queen again!
    Oh a deal will happen. The question is whether we will buckle and agree some artificial limit on the number (or proportion) of transatlantic flights operated by British carriers.
    Wasn’t the complicating factor that BA are not quite as British as they make out to be (IAG Group owning half a dozen airlines and having Qatar as a major shareholder)?
    That's correct. IAG is far from 51% British and the bilateral deal only allows majority owned UK or US firms to fly between us
    It can go back to being British then.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,426
    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:
    The Guardians reporting is a little misleading if my understanding is correct. The City has done a bunch of work and is in reasonable shape to manage the risks. The EU has done the square root of bugger all - that has the potential to cause real issues (eg around continuity of derivative / insurance contracts). The frustrating issue is this is all basic stuff that shouldn’t be politically controversial - it just needs to get done. But the EU has been unwilling to engage at all.
    But the bottom line is that it still represents a risk, no ?

    I’m not interested in the who’s to blame side, so much as the potential practical effects. Of course it’s still possible to sort this kind of stuff out, but we’re getting very close to the date on which the quite plausible possibility of a no deal Brexit happens.
    It’s not blame - it’s how do you fix it. The Guardian article was positioning it as a failure of the U.K. when - in this case - it isn’t and there’s not much we can do
    Our failure came in not preparing for this much earlier.
    It’s not as though people haven’t been complaining about the unreasonable behaviour of the EU ever since we held the referendum...
    That’s the point

    We’ve done the work

    They haven’t
    It is quite clear that the EU has breached its obligations to negotiate under Article 50.

    I am sure that the CJE would consider such a complaint completely objectively and impartially.
    It's possible, but since the EU would ignore an unfavourable ruling there wouldn't be much point to a challenge.
    If I was the government I would lodge the claim for the LOLs.

    It is surprising that anyone still believes being a part of this racket is a good thing.
    Well, it might be worth doing it if only to underline for the Eurosceptics that there's really nothing to worry about from having CJEU oversight as nobody pays the slightest attention to it. I can't understand why anyone thought that needed to be a red line on trade disputes. It would allow us to cherry pick to our heart's content.

    That said, it is vital that EU citizens have their status guaranteed under British law so they can have the protection of real courts (whatever the shortcomings of our legal system).
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,892
    Talking of LOLs about things that are not really funny the latest GERS figures are due out at 9.30 this morning: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-45260268

    As the BBC somewhat naughtily points out these were regarded as "definitive" by the Scottish Government back in 2010 when they showed Scotland to be in a better fiscal position than rUK. I think it would be fair to say that they are somewhat more equivocal these days. With the relatively low oil price over the last fiscal year they are unlikely to make happy reading.

    What the GERS figures show is the real challenge facing the Scottish government. That challenge is to help build a viable economy that is indeed capable of standing on its own two feet and giving its citizens a reasonable standard of living. But it's much more fun to go on marches.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,504
    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:
    The Guardians reporting is a little misleading if my understanding is correct. The City has done a bunch of work and is in reasonable shape to manage the risks. The EU has done the square root of bugger all - that has the potential to cause real issues (eg around continuity of derivative / insurance contracts). The frustrating issue is this is all basic stuff that shouldn’t be politically controversial - it just needs to get done. But the EU has been unwilling to engage at all.
    But the bottom line is that it still represents a risk, no ?

    I’m not interested in the who’s to blame side, so much as the potential practical effects. Of course it’s still possible to sort this kind of stuff out, but we’re getting very close to the date on which the quite plausible possibility of a no deal Brexit happens.
    It’s not blame - it’s how do you fix it. The Guardian article was positioning it as a failure of the U.K. when - in this case - it isn’t and there’s not much we can do
    Our failure came in not preparing for this much earlier.
    It’s not as though people haven’t been complaining about the unreasonable behaviour of the EU ever since we held the referendum...
    That’s the point

    We’ve done the work

    They haven’t
    It is quite clear that the EU has breached its obligations to negotiate under Article 50.

    I am sure that the CJE would consider such a complaint completely objectively and impartially.
    It's possible, but since the EU would ignore an unfavourable ruling there wouldn't be much point to a challenge.
    If I was the government I would lodge the claim for the LOLs.

    It is surprising that anyone still believes being a part of this racket is a good thing.
    It’s quite clear as well that there’s going to be a massive fault line in British life... pro- or anti- EU .......for quite a while.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,176
    Good video Robert. From a UK perspective, the problem is that when anything like this is tried, there are cries of "it's not our job to stop illegal immigration". See this story about healthcare:

    https://tinyurl.com/lndzjcl

    A medical charity has launched a campaign against government guidance that “makes border guards of doctors” by allowing the Home Office to access details of undocumented migrants who seek NHS treatment.

    Doctors of the World runs clinics for undocumented migrants, victims of trafficking and asylum seekers. It has assisted numerous patients, some pregnant and some with cancer, who are afraid of accessing NHS healthcare due to concerns that a visit to the doctor could lead to deportation.

    The organisation has joined forces with the human rights charity Liberty and the National Aids Trust to launch a petition aimed at reversing a data-sharing policy between the NHS and the Home Office implemented this year. They want the government to “stop using NHS patients’ personal information to carry out immigration enforcement”.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,507

    Also OT but on the US, Joe Biden looking feisty:

    https://twitter.com/attn/status/1030195530494693376

    Why say something like that?

    It’s just going to piss off the “white” community, and strengthen support for Trump.

    Bloody identity politics.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,871

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:
    The Guardians reporting is a little misleading if my understanding is correct. The City has done a bunch of work and is in reasonable shape to manage the risks. The EU has done the square root of bugger all - that has the potential to cause real issues (eg around continuity of derivative / insurance contracts). The frustrating issue is this is all basic stuff that shouldn’t be politically controversial - it just needs to get done. But the EU has been unwilling to engage at all.
    It’s the same with aviation. On the regulatory side there’s nothing controversial, it just needs to be done but the EU want to make everything a political negotiating point - so instead of engaging they threaten planes being grounded and licences invalidated. They’re past caring about the damage they will do to their own economies, so long at the UK is seen to be disadvantaged by leaving.
    I'm more worried about US-UK aviation right now. Back in June it looked like we would have a sensible bilateral deal, but American and United have lobbied and lobbied and lobbied, and the US has backed away from it.
    I think that there’s a deal to be done there once we have sorted out the arrangement with the EU, after all Trump does want some good news on trade rather than the endless negative headlines that are coming. If that fails we can tell him he can come over and meet the Queen again!
    Oh a deal will happen. The question is whether we will buckle and agree some artificial limit on the number (or proportion) of transatlantic flights operated by British carriers.
    Wasn’t the complicating factor that BA are not quite as British as they make out to be (IAG Group owning half a dozen airlines and having Qatar as a major shareholder)?
    That's correct. IAG is far from 51% British and the bilateral deal only allows majority owned UK or US firms to fly between us
    It can go back to being British then.
    Call yourself a Conservative? There was supposed to be some advantage in having all of our transport and utilities foreign-owned. Although I can't remember what it was.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,892
    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    It’s not blame - it’s how do you fix it. The Guardian article was positioning it as a failure of the U.K. when - in this case - it isn’t and there’s not much we can do
    Our failure came in not preparing for this much earlier.
    It’s not as though people haven’t been complaining about the unreasonable behaviour of the EU ever since we held the referendum...
    That’s the point

    We’ve done the work

    They haven’t
    It is quite clear that the EU has breached its obligations to negotiate under Article 50.

    I am sure that the CJE would consider such a complaint completely objectively and impartially.
    It's possible, but since the EU would ignore an unfavourable ruling there wouldn't be much point to a challenge.
    If I was the government I would lodge the claim for the LOLs.

    It is surprising that anyone still believes being a part of this racket is a good thing.
    Well, it might be worth doing it if only to underline for the Eurosceptics that there's really nothing to worry about from having CJEU oversight as nobody pays the slightest attention to it. I can't understand why anyone thought that needed to be a red line on trade disputes. It would allow us to cherry pick to our heart's content.

    That said, it is vital that EU citizens have their status guaranteed under British law so they can have the protection of real courts (whatever the shortcomings of our legal system).
    Agreed on both counts. Personally I would have proceeded on a much more unilateral basis from the start. So I would have given EU citizens residency, I would have made it clear that EU standards will be acceptable in the UK market provided that they remain equivalent, I would have stated that the UK will not impose tariffs on EU good and services except in retaliation and I would have declared that we will consider ourselves bound by all trade agreements entered through the EU until we agree a unilateral deal with the countries concerned and unless they gave us notice that they did not want to apply the treaty.

    By playing the game the way we have we have made ourselves supplicants. It has been astonishingly inept.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,628
    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:
    The Guardians reporting is a little misleading if my understanding is correct. The City has done a bunch of work and is in reasonable shape to manage the risks. The EU has done the square root of bugger all - that has the potential to cause real issues (eg around continuity of derivative / insurance contracts). The frustrating issue is this is all basic stuff that shouldn’t be politically controversial - it just needs to get done. But the EU has been unwilling to engage at all.
    But the bottom line is that it still represents a risk, no ?

    I’m not interested in the who’s to blame side, so much as the potential practical effects. Of course it’s still possible to sort this kind of stuff out, but we’re getting very close to the date on which the quite plausible possibility of a no deal Brexit happens.
    It’s not blame - it’s how do you fix it. The Guardian article was positioning it as a failure of the U.K. when - in this case - it isn’t and there’s not much we can do
    Our failure came in not preparing for this much earlier.
    It’s not as though people haven’t been complaining about the unreasonable behaviour of the EU ever since we held the referendum...
    That’s the point

    We’ve done the work

    They haven’t
    It is quite clear that the EU has breached its obligations to negotiate under Article 50.

    I am sure that the CJE would consider such a complaint completely objectively and impartially.
    I wonder how close we are to the point where we ask for an international arbitrator or the UN to get involved with things like financial services and aviation regulation?
    Article 50 was clearly never meant to be used. It is not fit for purpose.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,814
    Mr. Mark, depends what the purpose is.

    If it's to make things difficult for a country leaving the EU, it seems to be working reasonably well (aided by the incompetence of May).
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,537
    DavidL said:

    So basically May's policy of a "hostile environment" for illegal immigrants where their employers face swinging fines (typically starting at £10k per employee), have to do the work of recording that they do have the right to work, where the illegal can't open a bank account or get a driving licence or take on a tenancy without the landlord being vulnerable to fines is exactly the right one?

    It's funny how much grief it has given her then, isn't it? And the number of illegals in the UK probably runs to the low hundreds of thousands, not 300. Has it reduced demand? Almost certainly. Has it solved the problem? Nope.

    There is collateral damage too. I have a relation who is British as far back as family records go, was born in Britain and has lived here all his life. Abused as a child, he has changed his name decades ago to try to make a fresh start and struggles with depression. He has lost his passport, and replacing it requires him to give details about his long-dead parents (including their passport numbers ffs) as well as evidence for his name change. Without a passport or a driving licence, letting agents tell him they can't let him rent anywhere as the Government will fine them or send them to prison.

    Now if he was entirely well this could no doubt all be sorted out - various offices will supply birth certificate, record of name change, etc., and an interview with the passport authorities will probably resolve the issue about his parents' passport numbers etc. But he's demoralised and scared and just ekes out a life in B&Bs where the evidence isn't required and gets by with money from the family. It's awful and it's entirely irrelevant to the immigration issue. Obviously you could say it's his "fault", but the point is that the system - like many sysems in Britain - only really works if you're both mentally healthy and well-documented, otherwise you fall into one damn hole after another.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,749
    DavidL said:

    So basically May's policy of a "hostile environment" for illegal immigrants where their employers face swinging fines (typically starting at £10k per employee), have to do the work of recording that they do have the right to work, where the illegal can't open a bank account or get a driving licence or take on a tenancy without the landlord being vulnerable to fines is exactly the right one?

    It's funny how much grief it has given her then, isn't it? And the number of illegals in the UK probably runs to the low hundreds of thousands, not 300. Has it reduced demand? Almost certainly. Has it solved the problem? Nope.

    Mays problem came from enforcing a hostile environment on people who had the right to be here.

    The problem was of incompetent use of a blunt tool.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,628

    Mr. Mark, depends what the purpose is.

    If it's to make things difficult for a country leaving the EU, it seems to be working reasonably well (aided by the incompetence of May).

    The EU has not acted in "good faith" during the Article 50 process.

    It is why it was fuckwittery of the highest order to agree the back-stop position on Ireland. They will act in bad faith on that too. Leaving May's successor with an absolute shit-storm to have to deal with.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,814
    Mr. Mark, agree on all that.

    The EU's own desired sequence is demented too. Must sort the Irish border before a trade deal. But without a trade deal the nature of the border cannot be known.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,631

    Mr. Mark, depends what the purpose is.

    If it's to make things difficult for a country leaving the EU, it seems to be working reasonably well (aided by the incompetence of May).

    The EU has not acted in "good faith" during the Article 50 process.

    It is why it was fuckwittery of the highest order to agree the back-stop position on Ireland. They will act in bad faith on that too. Leaving May's successor with an absolute shit-storm to have to deal with.
    What we agreed to in December was unilaterally changed by the EU in March,

    We should turn around right at the end and say we’ll not sign anything with the NI backstop in it and that we have no intention of implementing anything but an electronic border in Ireland. Then watch Junker and Varakdar have the mother of all arguments about it.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited August 2018
    A once-in-a-lifetime nexus of trains, children's TV and politics. What's not to love?

    https://www.citymetric.com/horizons/labour-and-capital-are-one-sodor-economics-and-politics-thomas-tank-engine-4149

    And yet despite stagnant living standards the people/engines of Sodor appear content. Indeed it is unclear if they get paid at all – instead they seek meaning and joy in a Stakhanovite desire to be “really useful engines”. The great trick of Sir Topham is to employ engines who essentially evoke the image of the New Soviet man in the service of a proto-capitalist, semi-feudal enterprise.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,631
    edited August 2018

    DavidL said:

    So basically May's policy of a "hostile environment" for illegal immigrants where their employers face swinging fines (typically starting at £10k per employee), have to do the work of recording that they do have the right to work, where the illegal can't open a bank account or get a driving licence or take on a tenancy without the landlord being vulnerable to fines is exactly the right one?

    It's funny how much grief it has given her then, isn't it? And the number of illegals in the UK probably runs to the low hundreds of thousands, not 300. Has it reduced demand? Almost certainly. Has it solved the problem? Nope.

    There is collateral damage too. I have a relation who is British as far back as family records go, was born in Britain and has lived here all his life. Abused as a child, he has changed his name decades ago to try to make a fresh start and struggles with depression. He has lost his passport, and replacing it requires him to give details about his long-dead parents (including their passport numbers ffs) as well as evidence for his name change. Without a passport or a driving licence, letting agents tell him they can't let him rent anywhere as the Government will fine them or send them to prison.

    Now if he was entirely well this could no doubt all be sorted out - various offices will supply birth certificate, record of name change, etc., and an interview with the passport authorities will probably resolve the issue about his parents' passport numbers etc. But he's demoralised and scared and just ekes out a life in B&Bs where the evidence isn't required and gets by with money from the family. It's awful and it's entirely irrelevant to the immigration issue. Obviously you could say it's his "fault", but the point is that the system - like many sysems in Britain - only really works if you're both mentally healthy and well-documented, otherwise you fall into one damn hole after another.
    That’s a terribly sad story. Can no-one at social services or the CAB advocate for someone like this who’s fallen through the cracks? Maybe even his MP’s office?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,206
    ydoethur said:

    Meanwhile on the other side of the Pacific, it ain't over yet for Turnbull:

    Malcolm Turnbull: PM battles cabinet rebellion over leadership
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-45266718

    It's quite astonishing to reflect that John Howard was Prime Minister for a decade, and in roughly the same length of time since his defeat they've had no fewer than five Prime Ministers (although that's counting Kevin Rudd twice, of course).

    It's not even just in government as the Opposition leaders have been changing with monotonous regularity as well.

    There were two great statesmen who were Australian PMs for around a decade over the last 40 years or so, Bob Hawke and John Howard, all the others have been like ferrets in a sack stabbing each other in the back and the current prospects, Turnbull, Dutton and Shorten are not much better. Shorten of course backed Gillard then switched back to support Rudd
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,206
    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    OT, good podcast from 538 on the Cohen and Manafort verdicts:
    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/politics-podcast-what-do-cohens-plea-and-manaforts-verdict-mean-for-trump/?ex_cid=story-twitter

    The basic gist is that there't nothing there that would *directly* threaten our "Trump to make it to 2020" bets, but it's opened up a lot of potential lines of attack that might.

    That’s a good listen, stripped of the partisan political hyperbole that characterises most US media discussions on the subject.
    538 is usually pretty sensible.

    They were much more open minded on Trump's chances than other pundits, and they called the Dem hammering in 2016 absolutely right.

    There's a sort of drip, drip, drip right now of news that can only erode the credibility of Trump in the eyes of centrist voters. Trump desperately needs the Dems to pick someone stupid. Which they may well do.

    Or it may be President Hickenlooper.
    I think that if the GOP see Trump as a drag on other Republicans in the mid terms, they might look at getting rid of him for 2020. The problem is the primary process which, rather like with Corbyn, makes it difficult to get rid of a populist incumbent if they don’t want to go.

    Meanwhile the Democrats show every sign of having learned nothing from last time, they’ll probably run someone who’ll pile up votes in NY and LA, but forget about the large country in between them.
    The Democrats are likely to run a populist like Sanders or Warren or maybe even a joint ticket of both.

    The GOP primary electorate will likely ensure Trump or no Trump the Republican candidate is also a populist and the issue of the wall and illegal immigration will not have gone away by then
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,892
    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    So basically May's policy of a "hostile environment" for illegal immigrants where their employers face swinging fines (typically starting at £10k per employee), have to do the work of recording that they do have the right to work, where the illegal can't open a bank account or get a driving licence or take on a tenancy without the landlord being vulnerable to fines is exactly the right one?

    It's funny how much grief it has given her then, isn't it? And the number of illegals in the UK probably runs to the low hundreds of thousands, not 300. Has it reduced demand? Almost certainly. Has it solved the problem? Nope.

    Mays problem came from enforcing a hostile environment on people who had the right to be here.

    The problem was of incompetent use of a blunt tool.
    No, it's more fundamental that that. "Demand" type solutions as Robert is promoting require everyone to be properly documented and in the system. Nick's example is another one. We just haven't lived like that. Not having your records in order used to be a fundamental British right. The balance of power between State and citizen is changing markedly.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,181
    edited August 2018
    ydoethur said:

    Meanwhile on the other side of the Pacific, it ain't over yet for Turnbull:

    Malcolm Turnbull: PM battles cabinet rebellion over leadership
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-45266718

    It's quite astonishing to reflect that John Howard was Prime Minister for a decade, and in roughly the same length of time since his defeat they've had no fewer than five Prime Ministers (although that's counting Kevin Rudd twice, of course).

    It's not even just in government as the Opposition leaders have been changing with monotonous regularity as well.

    There's something to be said about how hard it is to challenge even bad leaders in many countries, but it does feel like Australia goes too far in the other direction. And I'm all for second chances, but ousted leaders sticking around for years waiting for their chance to oust back also causes issues.

    Bit ballsy of the opposition trot out the cliche government in chaos line when they do the same thing.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,426
    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    So basically May's policy of a "hostile environment" for illegal immigrants where their employers face swinging fines (typically starting at £10k per employee), have to do the work of recording that they do have the right to work, where the illegal can't open a bank account or get a driving licence or take on a tenancy without the landlord being vulnerable to fines is exactly the right one?

    It's funny how much grief it has given her then, isn't it? And the number of illegals in the UK probably runs to the low hundreds of thousands, not 300. Has it reduced demand? Almost certainly. Has it solved the problem? Nope.

    There is collateral damage too. I have a relation who is British as far back as family records go, was born in Britain and has lived here all his life. Abused as a child, he has changed his name decades ago to try to make a fresh start and struggles with depression. He has lost his passport, and replacing it requires him to give details about his long-dead parents (including their passport numbers ffs) as well as evidence for his name change. Without a passport or a driving licence, letting agents tell him they can't let him rent anywhere as the Government will fine them or send them to prison.

    Now if he was entirely well this could no doubt all be sorted out - various offices will supply birth certificate, record of name change, etc., and an interview with the passport authorities will probably resolve the issue about his parents' passport numbers etc. But he's demoralised and scared and just ekes out a life in B&Bs where the evidence isn't required and gets by with money from the family. It's awful and it's entirely irrelevant to the immigration issue. Obviously you could say it's his "fault", but the point is that the system - like many sysems in Britain - only really works if you're both mentally healthy and well-documented, otherwise you fall into one damn hole after another.
    That’s a terribly sad story. Can no-one at social services or the CAB advocate for someone like this who’s fallen through the cracks? Maybe even his MP’s office?
    My experience of our junior civil servants, sadly, is that they follow the rules religiously even when they are patently not working, and lie to cover up the reason for their actions.

    Then, when complaints are made, ferocious pressure is brought to bear on the complainant to drop it. In my case, one so-called independent assessor told me that the criminal law didn't apply to the people I was complaining about, that it was stupid of me to expect that they apply systems that work or to be told the truth. Despite a formal complaint about this bullying by her to the then Secretary of State concerned, she is still in post.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095

    DavidL said:

    So basically May's policy of a "hostile environment" for illegal immigrants where their employers face swinging fines (typically starting at £10k per employee), have to do the work of recording that they do have the right to work, where the illegal can't open a bank account or get a driving licence or take on a tenancy without the landlord being vulnerable to fines is exactly the right one?

    It's funny how much grief it has given her then, isn't it? And the number of illegals in the UK probably runs to the low hundreds of thousands, not 300. Has it reduced demand? Almost certainly. Has it solved the problem? Nope.

    There is collateral damage too. I have a relation who is British as far back as family records go, was born in Britain and has lived here all his life. Abused as a child, he has changed his name decades ago to try to make a fresh start and struggles with depression. He has lost his passport, and replacing it requires him to give details about his long-dead parents (including their passport numbers ffs) as well as evidence for his name change. Without a passport or a driving licence, letting agents tell him they can't let him rent anywhere as the Government will fine them or send them to prison.

    Now if he was entirely well this could no doubt all be sorted out - various offices will supply birth certificate, record of name change, etc., and an interview with the passport authorities will probably resolve the issue about his parents' passport numbers etc. But he's demoralised and scared and just ekes out a life in B&Bs where the evidence isn't required and gets by with money from the family. It's awful and it's entirely irrelevant to the immigration issue. Obviously you could say it's his "fault", but the point is that the system - like many sysems in Britain - only really works if you're both mentally healthy and well-documented, otherwise you fall into one damn hole after another.
    "many systems in Britain".. I expect the systems are not too different in other Countries
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,366
    Mr Meeks,

    When you sup with the devil, you should carry a long spoon. For once, Trump forgot that in his dealings with lawyers.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,176
    Of course, from a UK perspective, illegal immigration isn't that big an issue. It's the legal immigration that causes the consternation.
  • DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    So basically May's policy of a "hostile environment" for illegal immigrants where their employers face swinging fines (typically starting at £10k per employee), have to do the work of recording that they do have the right to work, where the illegal can't open a bank account or get a driving licence or take on a tenancy without the landlord being vulnerable to fines is exactly the right one?

    It's funny how much grief it has given her then, isn't it? And the number of illegals in the UK probably runs to the low hundreds of thousands, not 300. Has it reduced demand? Almost certainly. Has it solved the problem? Nope.

    Mays problem came from enforcing a hostile environment on people who had the right to be here.

    The problem was of incompetent use of a blunt tool.
    No, it's more fundamental that that. "Demand" type solutions as Robert is promoting require everyone to be properly documented and in the system. Nick's example is another one. We just haven't lived like that. Not having your records in order used to be a fundamental British right. The balance of power between State and citizen is changing markedly.
    Indeed "papers pleasw" is decidedly unBritish but how we now live.
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,789

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:
    The Guardians reporting is a little misleading if my understanding is correct. The City has done a bunch of work and is in reasonable shape to manage the risks. The EU has done the square root of bugger all - that has the potential to cause real issues (eg around continuity of derivative / insurance contracts). The frustrating issue is this is all basic stuff that shouldn’t be politically controversial - it just needs to get done. But the EU has been unwilling to engage at all.
    It’s the same with aviation. On the regulatory side there’s nothing controversial, it just needs to be done but the EU want to make everything a political negotiating point - so instead of engaging they threaten planes being grounded and licences invalidated. They’re past caring about the damage they will do to their own economies, so long at the UK is seen to be disadvantaged by leaving.
    I'm more worried about US-UK aviation right now. Back in June it looked like we would have a sensible bilateral deal, but American and United have lobbied and lobbied and lobbied, and the US has backed away from it.
    I think that there’s a deal to be done there once we have sorted out the arrangement with the EU, after all Trump does want some good news on trade rather than the endless negative headlines that are coming. If that fails we can tell him he can come over and meet the Queen again!
    Oh a deal will happen. The question is whether we will buckle and agree some artificial limit on the number (or proportion) of transatlantic flights operated by British carriers.
    Wasn’t the complicating factor that BA are not quite as British as they make out to be (IAG Group owning half a dozen airlines and having Qatar as a major shareholder)?
    That's correct. IAG is far from 51% British and the bilateral deal only allows majority owned UK or US firms to fly between us
    It can go back to being British then.
    So not content with advising manufacturers on warehousing you’ve moved onto how IAG structures its business.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,208
    The UK Border Authority has a unique talent of turning people who are vaguely positive towards the UK into outright hatred. Including my sister in law who will never set foot in this country again. This isn't callous incompetence however. It comes from deliberate policy.

    https://twitter.com/fozmeadows/status/1027667863169990656
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,992
    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    It’s not blame - it’s how do you fix it. The Guardian article was positioning it as a failure of the U.K. when - in this case - it isn’t and there’s not much we can do
    Our failure came in not preparing for this much earlier.
    It’s not as though people haven’t been complaining about the unreasonable behaviour of the EU ever since we held the referendum...
    That’s the point

    We’ve done the work

    They haven’t
    It is quite clear that the EU has breached its obligations to negotiate under Article 50.

    I am sure that the CJE would consider such a complaint completely objectively and impartially.
    It's possible, but since the EU would ignore an unfavourable ruling there wouldn't be much point to a challenge.
    If I was the government I would lodge the claim for the LOLs.

    It is surprising that anyone still believes being a part of this racket is a good thing.
    Well, it might be worth doing it if only to underline for the Eurosceptics that there's really nothing to worry about from having CJEU oversight as nobody pays the slightest attention to it. I can't understand why anyone thought that needed to be a red line on trade disputes. It would allow us to cherry pick to our heart's content.

    That said, it is vital that EU citizens have their status guaranteed under British law so they can have the protection of real courts (whatever the shortcomings of our legal system).
    Agreed on both counts. Personally I would have proceeded on a much more unilateral basis from the start. So I would have given EU citizens residency, I would have made it clear that EU standards will be acceptable in the UK market provided that they remain equivalent, I would have stated that the UK will not impose tariffs on EU good and services except in retaliation and I would have declared that we will consider ourselves bound by all trade agreements entered through the EU until we agree a unilateral deal with the countries concerned and unless they gave us notice that they did not want to apply the treaty.

    By playing the game the way we have we have made ourselves supplicants. It has been astonishingly inept.
    Another Leaver prepared to throw UK citizens living in the EU under the bus.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    So basically May's policy of a "hostile environment" for illegal immigrants where their employers face swinging fines (typically starting at £10k per employee), have to do the work of recording that they do have the right to work, where the illegal can't open a bank account or get a driving licence or take on a tenancy without the landlord being vulnerable to fines is exactly the right one?

    It's funny how much grief it has given her then, isn't it? And the number of illegals in the UK probably runs to the low hundreds of thousands, not 300. Has it reduced demand? Almost certainly. Has it solved the problem? Nope.

    Mays problem came from enforcing a hostile environment on people who had the right to be here.

    The problem was of incompetent use of a blunt tool.
    No, it's more fundamental that that. "Demand" type solutions as Robert is promoting require everyone to be properly documented and in the system. Nick's example is another one. We just haven't lived like that. Not having your records in order used to be a fundamental British right. The balance of power between State and citizen is changing markedly.
    Indeed "papers pleasw" is decidedly unBritish but how we now live.
    Things change. That attitude was fine when international travel was a luxury and we had a nightwatchman state. Today, the government spends 40% of GDP and 1 in 8 were born abroad.

    The time for ID cards has come. Is Switzerland unfree for having them?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,992
    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    So basically May's policy of a "hostile environment" for illegal immigrants where their employers face swinging fines (typically starting at £10k per employee), have to do the work of recording that they do have the right to work, where the illegal can't open a bank account or get a driving licence or take on a tenancy without the landlord being vulnerable to fines is exactly the right one?

    It's funny how much grief it has given her then, isn't it? And the number of illegals in the UK probably runs to the low hundreds of thousands, not 300. Has it reduced demand? Almost certainly. Has it solved the problem? Nope.

    Mays problem came from enforcing a hostile environment on people who had the right to be here.

    The problem was of incompetent use of a blunt tool.
    No, it's more fundamental that that. "Demand" type solutions as Robert is promoting require everyone to be properly documented and in the system. Nick's example is another one. We just haven't lived like that. Not having your records in order used to be a fundamental British right. The balance of power between State and citizen is changing markedly.
    And yet, with an EU-wide system whereby you didn't need "papers" there had been signs that we were getting more liberal and less authoritarian. Sadly all thrown in the bin now.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,778
    "This event is therefore unprecedented in U.S. history. Never before has someone pleaded guilty in open court and said he acted at the direction of the president. We are therefore entering into a new phase of the Trump presidency — one that will be complex and treacherous for the president and for the country."

    https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-08-21/michael-cohen-s-guilty-plea-puts-president-trump-in-perilous-spot?cmpid=socialflow-twitter-business&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_content=politics&cmpid==socialflow-twitter-politics
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    A really nice use of data here. Though NB the methodology used (donations) forces the data to the extremes as obviously the mass of people in the middle are less likely to have made donations.
    https://twitter.com/SteveStuWill/status/1031639495345549315
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,208
    FF43 said:

    The UK Border Authority has a unique talent of turning people who are vaguely positive towards the UK into outright hatred. Including my sister in law who will never set foot in this country again. This isn't callous incompetence however. It comes from deliberate policy.

    https://twitter.com/fozmeadows/status/1027667863169990656

    Add this from the thread because it's so well put.

    https://twitter.com/fozmeadows/status/1027680940171001856
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,537
    Sandpit said:


    That’s a terribly sad story. Can no-one at social services or the CAB advocate for someone like this who’s fallen through the cracks? Maybe even his MP’s office?

    I'm sure that's true up to a point, and of course with my background I can and do know the ropes and help whenever I can. But because he moves every few days from one B&B to another as they get booked up he has no fixed MP (or GP, incidentally, and he's not very well physically either) and because of his fragile state of mind it's hard to get him to fill out long forms, arrange interviews with authorities etc. - he gets scared at all the questions and the demands to go somewhere else and fill out another form etc etc. and I can't actually force him: he's not unwell enough to justify psychiatric detention or anything like that.

    And yet he's just obviously British - the most casual interview about where he grew up and what's happened would convince anyone, and any number of family members would swear oaths to that effect. The civil servants aren't horrible, but they politely say unfortunately they have to follow procedures to prevent illegal immigration. The letting agents are just scared - "I can see he's British but I can't risk my job by not having an audit of having checked his passport etc." He lost his bank card with his passport and his bank refuses to let him have another unless he produces a passport, so although he has savings he has no access to them.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487

    DavidL said:

    So basically May's policy of a "hostile environment" for illegal immigrants where their employers face swinging fines (typically starting at £10k per employee), have to do the work of recording that they do have the right to work, where the illegal can't open a bank account or get a driving licence or take on a tenancy without the landlord being vulnerable to fines is exactly the right one?

    It's funny how much grief it has given her then, isn't it? And the number of illegals in the UK probably runs to the low hundreds of thousands, not 300. Has it reduced demand? Almost certainly. Has it solved the problem? Nope.

    There is collateral damage too. I have a relation who is British as far back as family records go, was born in Britain and has lived here all his life. Abused as a child, he has changed his name decades ago to try to make a fresh start and struggles with depression. He has lost his passport, and replacing it requires him to give details about his long-dead parents (including their passport numbers ffs) as well as evidence for his name change. Without a passport or a driving licence, letting agents tell him they can't let him rent anywhere as the Government will fine them or send them to prison.

    Now if he was entirely well this could no doubt all be sorted out - various offices will supply birth certificate, record of name change, etc., and an interview with the passport authorities will probably resolve the issue about his parents' passport numbers etc. But he's demoralised and scared and just ekes out a life in B&Bs where the evidence isn't required and gets by with money from the family. It's awful and it's entirely irrelevant to the immigration issue. Obviously you could say it's his "fault", but the point is that the system - like many sysems in Britain - only really works if you're both mentally healthy and well-documented, otherwise you fall into one damn hole after another.
    "many systems in Britain".. I expect the systems are not too different in other Countries
    That’s alright then.

    FFS.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,778
    Allison Pearson:

    "Sorry, but however out of touch or arthritic they may be, Conservative party members simply could not pick a leader more disastrous than the one we’ve got already."

    You wanna bet?
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,449
    Fun to see more Leavers blaming the EU for the Brexit process (initiated by Leavers) falling apart.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,814
    Mr. Fire, what would you have done? Just left with no negotiations at all?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,778

    Sandpit said:


    That’s a terribly sad story. Can no-one at social services or the CAB advocate for someone like this who’s fallen through the cracks? Maybe even his MP’s office?

    I'm sure that's true up to a point, and of course with my background I can and do know the ropes and help whenever I can. But because he moves every few days from one B&B to another as they get booked up he has no fixed MP (or GP, incidentally, and he's not very well physically either) and because of his fragile state of mind it's hard to get him to fill out long forms, arrange interviews with authorities etc. - he gets scared at all the questions and the demands to go somewhere else and fill out another form etc etc. and I can't actually force him: he's not unwell enough to justify psychiatric detention or anything like that.

    And yet he's just obviously British - the most casual interview about where he grew up and what's happened would convince anyone, and any number of family members would swear oaths to that effect. The civil servants aren't horrible, but they politely say unfortunately they have to follow procedures to prevent illegal immigration. The letting agents are just scared - "I can see he's British but I can't risk my job by not having an audit of having checked his passport etc." He lost his bank card with his passport and his bank refuses to let him have another unless he produces a passport, so although he has savings he has no access to them.
    Letting agents only have to do this thanks to May. She introduced a system whereby landlords and their agents had to do the job the border agency should be doing.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,819
    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    There is collateral damage too. I have a relation who is British as far back as family records go, was born in Britain and has lived here all his life. Abused as a child, he has changed his name decades ago to try to make a fresh start and struggles with depression. He has lost his passport, and replacing it requires him to give details about his long-dead parents (including their passport numbers ffs) as well as evidence for his name change. Without a passport or a driving licence, letting agents tell him they can't let him rent anywhere as the Government will fine them or send them to prison.

    Now if he was entirely well this could no doubt all be sorted out - various offices will supply birth certificate, record of name change, etc., and an interview with the passport authorities will probably resolve the issue about his parents' passport numbers etc. But he's demoralised and scared and just ekes out a life in B&Bs where the evidence isn't required and gets by with money from the family. It's awful and it's entirely irrelevant to the immigration issue. Obviously you could say it's his "fault", but the point is that the system - like many sysems in Britain - only really works if you're both mentally healthy and well-documented, otherwise you fall into one damn hole after another.
    That’s a terribly sad story. Can no-one at social services or the CAB advocate for someone like this who’s fallen through the cracks? Maybe even his MP’s office?
    My experience of our junior civil servants, sadly, is that they follow the rules religiously even when they are patently not working, and lie to cover up the reason for their actions.

    Then, when complaints are made, ferocious pressure is brought to bear on the complainant to drop it. In my case, one so-called independent assessor told me that the criminal law didn't apply to the people I was complaining about, that it was stupid of me to expect that they apply systems that work or to be told the truth. Despite a formal complaint about this bullying by her to the then Secretary of State concerned, she is still in post.
    Ditto. I could bore for hours on a 6 year fight against civil servant bureaucracy. The resolution routes just aren't there (contrary to what one might be led to believe). When minsters stand up and say this must never happen again (Windrush, Equitable Life, Hillsborough, Blood Contamination, etc, etc) they are talking nonsense - it just keeps happening. I'm fortunate as I can fight my case and I'm not dependent on a successful outcome, but others can't and the impact on them can be devastating (there are 3,000 impacted in the cause I am fighting, which seems very clear cut).
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,631

    Allison Pearson:

    "Sorry, but however out of touch or arthritic they may be, Conservative party members simply could not pick a leader more disastrous than the one we’ve got already."

    You wanna bet?

    On the contrary, Ms Pearson, the lack of an obvious, better, successor is perhaps the only think keeping the PM in place at the moment.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    So basically May's policy of a "hostile environment" for illegal immigrants where their employers face swinging fines (typically starting at £10k per employee), have to do the work of recording that they do have the right to work, where the illegal can't open a bank account or get a driving licence or take on a tenancy without the landlord being vulnerable to fines is exactly the right one?

    It's funny how much grief it has given her then, isn't it? And the number of illegals in the UK probably runs to the low hundreds of thousands, not 300. Has it reduced demand? Almost certainly. Has it solved the problem? Nope.

    Mays problem came from enforcing a hostile environment on people who had the right to be here.

    The problem was of incompetent use of a blunt tool.
    No, it's more fundamental that that. "Demand" type solutions as Robert is promoting require everyone to be properly documented and in the system. Nick's example is another one. We just haven't lived like that. Not having your records in order used to be a fundamental British right. The balance of power between State and citizen is changing markedly.
    And yet, with an EU-wide system whereby you didn't need "papers" there had been signs that we were getting more liberal and less authoritarian. Sadly all thrown in the bin now.
    An illusion, surely. As we all carry smartphones, the authorities wherever we happen to be know who and exactly where we are without having to ask. If we had all been compulsorily microchipped that would look a bit dystopian, but the actual situation comes to exactly the same thing.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,537



    "many systems in Britain".. I expect the systems are not too different in other Countries

    I think you're right. But we are unusually (and curiously un-British) in our rigidity. I once messed up my residence permit in Denmark and was called round to the police, who said they were considering prosecution. I explained what had led to the mixup (Denmark had recently joined the EU and I thought I no longer needed a permit, whereas I did although it would be automatically granted). They listened, pondered for 5 minutes, and then said oh well, never mind then.

    As an MP I encountered other cases like my relative's, though less drastic ones. Basically everything works fine if you're educated, fluent, documented and confident, and politicians who are all of those things sometimes make the mistake of thinking everyone else is too. I'd be fine if I lost my passport or even my home - I'd know exactly what to do and would set about it briskly. But not everyone is that fortunate in their background.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,773

    Sandpit said:


    That’s a terribly sad story. Can no-one at social services or the CAB advocate for someone like this who’s fallen through the cracks? Maybe even his MP’s office?

    I'm sure that's true up to a point, and of course with my background I can and do know the ropes and help whenever I can. But because he moves every few days from one B&B to another as they get booked up he has no fixed MP (or GP, incidentally, and he's not very well physically either) and because of his fragile state of mind it's hard to get him to fill out long forms, arrange interviews with authorities etc. - he gets scared at all the questions and the demands to go somewhere else and fill out another form etc etc. and I can't actually force him: he's not unwell enough to justify psychiatric detention or anything like that.

    And yet he's just obviously British - the most casual interview about where he grew up and what's happened would convince anyone, and any number of family members would swear oaths to that effect. The civil servants aren't horrible, but they politely say unfortunately they have to follow procedures to prevent illegal immigration. The letting agents are just scared - "I can see he's British but I can't risk my job by not having an audit of having checked his passport etc." He lost his bank card with his passport and his bank refuses to let him have another unless he produces a passport, so although he has savings he has no access to them.
    This is sadly evidence of the fact the modern society, with its rules etc is just too complex. In a simpler time, he might have got by, but with like for example the bank, if the computer and the policies say no, then they say no.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,992
    kjh said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    There is collateral damage too. I have a relation who is But the point is that the system - like many sysems in Britain - only really works if you're both mentally healthy and well-documented, otherwise you fall into one damn hole after another.
    That’s a terribly sad story. Can no-one at social services or the CAB advocate for someone like this who’s fallen through the cracks? Maybe even his MP’s office?
    My experience of our junior civil servants, sadly, is that they follow the rules religiously even when they are patently not working, and lie to cover up the reason for their actions.

    Then, when complaints are made, ferocious pressure is brought to bear on the complainant to drop it. In my case, one so-called independent assessor told me that the criminal law didn't apply to the people I was complaining about, that it was stupid of me to expect that they apply systems that work or to be told the truth. Despite a formal complaint about this bullying by her to the then Secretary of State concerned, she is still in post.
    Ditto. I could bore for hours on a 6 year fight against civil servant bureaucracy. The resolution routes just aren't there (contrary to what one might be led to believe). When minsters stand up and say this must never happen again (Windrush, Equitable Life, Hillsborough, Blood Contamination, etc, etc) they are talking nonsense - it just keeps happening. I'm fortunate as I can fight my case and I'm not dependent on a successful outcome, but others can't and the impact on them can be devastating (there are 3,000 impacted in the cause I am fighting, which seems very clear cut).
    If you think Windrush et al are egregious, wait until the sh&tshow that will be managing EU citizen registration process runs its course.

    TMay might as well stand outside 10 Downing Street this morning and issue one of those heartfelt apologies to the thousands of people who will have their worlds turned upside down by the mismanagement of working out who can stay and who must go.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039

    Letting agents only have to do this thanks to May. She introduced a system whereby landlords and their agents had to do the job the border agency should be doing.

    Could I recommend the video at the top of the thread?
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138
    IanB2 said:


    It can go back to being British then.

    Call yourself a Conservative? There was supposed to be some advantage in having all of our transport and utilities foreign-owned. Although I can't remember what it was.
    Probably a tax dodge of some kind.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,631
    edited August 2018

    Sandpit said:


    That’s a terribly sad story. Can no-one at social services or the CAB advocate for someone like this who’s fallen through the cracks? Maybe even his MP’s office?

    I'm sure that's true up to a point, and of course with my background I can and do know the ropes and help whenever I can. But because he moves every few days from one B&B to another as they get booked up he has no fixed MP (or GP, incidentally, and he's not very well physically either) and because of his fragile state of mind it's hard to get him to fill out long forms, arrange interviews with authorities etc. - he gets scared at all the questions and the demands to go somewhere else and fill out another form etc etc. and I can't actually force him: he's not unwell enough to justify psychiatric detention or anything like that.

    And yet he's just obviously British - the most casual interview about where he grew up and what's happened would convince anyone, and any number of family members would swear oaths to that effect. The civil servants aren't horrible, but they politely say unfortunately they have to follow procedures to prevent illegal immigration. The letting agents are just scared - "I can see he's British but I can't risk my job by not having an audit of having checked his passport etc." He lost his bank card with his passport and his bank refuses to let him have another unless he produces a passport, so although he has savings he has no access to them.
    Sadly the over-bureaucratic, box-ticking mentality has got worse over the years, with a total lack of empowerment of staff to actually solve problems. The comedy sketch “Computer Says No” was first aired nearly two decades ago, and since then there are fewer and fewer people around who have any customer service skills whatsoever.

    Not just a British problem either, many other countries have similar issues.

    Hope your relative can get himself sorted out.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,206
    FF43 said:

    The UK Border Authority has a unique talent of turning people who are vaguely positive towards the UK into outright hatred. Including my sister in law who will never set foot in this country again. This isn't callous incompetence however. It comes from deliberate policy.

    https://twitter.com/fozmeadows/status/1027667863169990656

    The Brexit vote was largely to gain greater control over EU migration to the UK much as Australia has tight border control over Asian migration to Australia. Plus a clear points system even for British migrants
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223



    "many systems in Britain".. I expect the systems are not too different in other Countries

    I think you're right. But we are unusually (and curiously un-British) in our rigidity. I once messed up my residence permit in Denmark and was called round to the police, who said they were considering prosecution. I explained what had led to the mixup (Denmark had recently joined the EU and I thought I no longer needed a permit, whereas I did although it would be automatically granted). They listened, pondered for 5 minutes, and then said oh well, never mind then.

    As an MP I encountered other cases like my relative's, though less drastic ones. Basically everything works fine if you're educated, fluent, documented and confident, and politicians who are all of those things sometimes make the mistake of thinking everyone else is too. I'd be fine if I lost my passport or even my home - I'd know exactly what to do and would set about it briskly. But not everyone is that fortunate in their background.
    People who are educated, fluent, documented and confident will always handle bureaucracy better than those who aren’t. The question is do our civil servants demonstrate less initiative than those in comparable states, which is crucial for cases that aren’t clear-cut and the more vulnerable?

    Switzerland and Denmark are both smaller countries. Are France and Germany any worse than us?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,015
    edited August 2018
    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:
    The Guardians reporting is a little misleading if my understanding is correct. The City has done a bunch of work and is in reasonable shape to manage the risks. The EU has done the square root of bugger all - that has the potential to cause real issues (eg around continuity of derivative / insurance contracts). The frustrating issue is this is all basic stuff that shouldn’t be politically controversial - it just needs to get done. But the EU has been unwilling to engage at all.
    But the bottom line is that it still represents a risk, no ?

    I’m not interested in the who’s to blame side, so much as the potential practical effects. Of course it’s still possible to sort this kind of stuff out, but we’re getting very close to the date on which the quite plausible possibility of a no deal Brexit happens.
    It’s not blame - it’s how do you fix it.
    Your previous post suggests we fix it by blaming the EU.

  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,301
    I missed the big news yesterday - but just to say I think Trump is in big trouble.
    Him out before end of 1st term is a value trading bet in my eyes.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,778
    Sandpit said:

    Allison Pearson:

    "Sorry, but however out of touch or arthritic they may be, Conservative party members simply could not pick a leader more disastrous than the one we’ve got already."

    You wanna bet?

    On the contrary, Ms Pearson, the lack of an obvious, better, successor is perhaps the only think keeping the PM in place at the moment.
    Or perhaps the lack of an "agreed upon" better successor. No doubt each wing of the party could come up with names, but they are terrified a contest will be won by the other side.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708

    Also OT but on the US, Joe Biden looking feisty:

    https://twitter.com/attn/status/1030195530494693376

    Why say something like that?

    It’s just going to piss off the “white” community, and strengthen support for Trump.

    Bloody identity politics.
    Well, it seems like it's aimed at Democratic primary voters rather than voters in general, doesn't it? Obviously this has betting implications...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,426
    RoyalBlue said:



    "many systems in Britain".. I expect the systems are not too different in other Countries

    I think you're right. But we are unusually (and curiously un-British) in our rigidity. I once messed up my residence permit in Denmark and was called round to the police, who said they were considering prosecution. I explained what had led to the mixup (Denmark had recently joined the EU and I thought I no longer needed a permit, whereas I did although it would be automatically granted). They listened, pondered for 5 minutes, and then said oh well, never mind then.

    As an MP I encountered other cases like my relative's, though less drastic ones. Basically everything works fine if you're educated, fluent, documented and confident, and politicians who are all of those things sometimes make the mistake of thinking everyone else is too. I'd be fine if I lost my passport or even my home - I'd know exactly what to do and would set about it briskly. But not everyone is that fortunate in their background.
    People who are educated, fluent, documented and confident will always handle bureaucracy better than those who aren’t. The question is do our civil servants demonstrate less initiative than those in comparable states, which is crucial for cases that aren’t clear-cut and the more vulnerable?

    Switzerland and Denmark are both smaller countries. Are France and Germany any worse than us?
    The problem for civil servants is that somebody who follows procedure will always be safe from disciplinary while somebody who tries to help by bending the rules to make them work can be disciplined even if there is a positive outcome. Therefore, civil servants will always play it safe.

    I get exactly the same problem all the time in teaching - less often as I get more skilful at manipulating my superiors, admittedly, but it's a serious problem that I've seen really compromise a child's education.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,206
    Rees Mogg praises Barry Gardiner for rejecting a second referendum

    https://mobile.twitter.com/Jacob_Rees_Mogg/status/1032180285339848704
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,814
    Mr. Z, I don't have a smartphone.

    Figures out in recent days have indicated a rise in the sale of so-called dumb phones (ie for making and receiving calls only) for the first time in quite a while.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,992
    Ishmael_Z said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    So basically May's policy of a "hostile environment" for illegal immigrants where their employers face swinging fines (typically starting at £10k per employee), have to do the work of recording that they do have the right to work, where the illegal can't open a bank account or get a driving licence or take on a tenancy without the landlord being vulnerable to fines is exactly the right one?

    It's funny how much grief it has given her then, isn't it? And the number of illegals in the UK probably runs to the low hundreds of thousands, not 300. Has it reduced demand? Almost certainly. Has it solved the problem? Nope.

    Mays problem came from enforcing a hostile environment on people who had the right to be here.

    The problem was of incompetent use of a blunt tool.
    No, it's more fundamental that that. "Demand" type solutions as Robert is promoting require everyone to be properly documented and in the system. Nick's example is another one. We just haven't lived like that. Not having your records in order used to be a fundamental British right. The balance of power between State and citizen is changing markedly.
    And yet, with an EU-wide system whereby you didn't need "papers" there had been signs that we were getting more liberal and less authoritarian. Sadly all thrown in the bin now.
    An illusion, surely. As we all carry smartphones, the authorities wherever we happen to be know who and exactly where we are without having to ask. If we had all been compulsorily microchipped that would look a bit dystopian, but the actual situation comes to exactly the same thing.
    Of course. But that is voluntary. There is nothing compulsory about that. Someone cutting about with a Nokia 6330 and using a cash pay as you go Oyster ain't being tracked anywhere.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,819
    TOPPING said:

    kjh said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    There is collateral damage too. I have a relation who is But the point is that the system - like many sysems in Britain - only really works if you're both mentally healthy and well-documented, otherwise you fall into one damn hole after another.
    My experience of our junior civil servants, sadly, is that they follow the rules religiously even when they are patently not working, and lie to cover up the reason for their actions.

    Then, when complaints are made, ferocious pressure is brought to bear on the complainant to drop it. In my case, one so-called independent assessor told me that the criminal law didn't apply to the people I was complaining about, that it was stupid of me to expect that they apply systems that work or to be told the truth. Despite a formal complaint about this bullying by her to the then Secretary of State concerned, she is still in post.
    Ditto. I could bore for hours on a 6 year fight against civil servant bureaucracy. The resolution routes just aren't there (contrary to what one might be led to believe). When minsters stand up and say this must never happen again (Windrush, Equitable Life, Hillsborough, Blood Contamination, etc, etc) they are talking nonsense - it just keeps happening. I'm fortunate as I can fight my case and I'm not dependent on a successful outcome, but others can't and the impact on them can be devastating (there are 3,000 impacted in the cause I am fighting, which seems very clear cut).
    If you think Windrush et al are egregious, wait until the sh&tshow that will be managing EU citizen registration process runs its course.

    TMay might as well stand outside 10 Downing Street this morning and issue one of those heartfelt apologies to the thousands of people who will have their worlds turned upside down by the mismanagement of working out who can stay and who must go.
    I know. Until it happens to you, you can't believe it is possible. My MP is just completely gobsmacked by our case (he has been an MP for 26 years). There have been 2 Parliamentary debates, there are 2 attempts being made to change the law by different MPs, all to resolve a blatant injustice. Ombudsman are useless. If it isn't routine (this isn't) they put in an almighty amount of work to argue it is 'out of remit'. Civil servants refuse to answer questions and FOI requests show ministers just sign letters drafted by Civil Servants, so ministers seem unaware this is happening. When you write back pointing obvious nonsense it goes straight back into the Civil Service machine. 20 years later no doubt the scandal will break and we will all be told 'it must never happen again'.
This discussion has been closed.