"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.
There’s that too. The contest, when it comes, will be absolutely fascinating though, there could easily be a dozen runners for the MPs to whittle down, with lots of negative voting and vote-lending to try and engineer the final two names that go to the membership. If the MPs mess it up then we end up with Amber Rudd and Boris Johnson for the members, or Philip Hammond and Andrea Leadsom.
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...
Robert's suggestion is about employers, not doctors.
There's a downside to any kind of prohibition-type policy that you dissuade people from interacting with anyone in authority. This is the point behind the "sanctuary cities" stuff: If an illegal immigrant sees you getting mugged, you don't want them to be afraid to call the police in case they get deported. The same is true if they're a victim of crime or if they get sick.
You have a little bit of the same thing with employers in that if you make employers who work in the legal economy unwilling to hire people, you increase the supply of labour in the illegal economy. You also create more unemployment among illegal immigrants (to the extent that this isn't fully cancelled out by the deterrent in being there) which brings its own problems.
However, I think the balance is much more obvious for things like heathcare and law enforcement than employment. Employment will have a big deterrent effect and probably not a very big social problem effect, whereas immigration enforcement via medicine, social services or normal policing will create a lot of social problems without having much of a deterrent effect.
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.
But the only person like that is Morris Dancer, and that puts him right at the top of any list of deeply suspicious individuals. And the "voluntary" argument only goes so far; I voluntarily live in a house, and own a car, and eat food, but I also don't have too many realistic alternatives.
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.
That is where I disagree and agree with Robert. It is not good enough to say that this is the Border Agency's problem and not ours. That is the wall system and it does not work. So you have to have controls that assume illegal immigrants will be in the country, whether it is people who have been smuggled, students overstaying their visa, failed asylum seekers who have not been removed etc etc. Those who want to employ people or rent accomodation to them or give them a bank account should have obligations to ensure that this is someone that they can legally and properly deal with.
"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.
Procedures are there to protect officials as Sir Humphrey would have said
Very sensible - A nice middle ground between Trump's desire to look tough to his base and the ultraleft handwringers that claim anything is too much when it comes to immigration enforcement.
Mr. Z, suspicious? Me? Why would a man who lives in a castle, has placed dozens of siege engines on the coast, is working on a small array of superweapons such as the MD StarGun and the solar death ray, and conducts ongoing genetic research into creating a flawless landwalking megafish cause you any concern?
Mr. Z, suspicious? Me? Why would a man who lives in a castle, has placed dozens of siege engines on the coast, is working on a small array of superweapons such as the MD StarGun and the solar death ray, and conducts ongoing genetic research into creating a flawless landwalking megafish cause you any concern?
TSE will be along shortly with remarks about Hannibal...
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.
But the only person like that is Morris Dancer, and that puts him right at the top of any list of deeply suspicious individuals. And the "voluntary" argument only goes so far; I voluntarily live in a house, and own a car, and eat food, but I also don't have too many realistic alternatives.
Hmm - I think that the number of non-house owning, non-car owning people is non-trivial. And I am also under the impression that you can buy food with cash. So there is definitely a group of people who, if they choose, need not be monitored every second of the day.
And as for Morris Dancer, I always thought something was up with him.
Scotland has a 5.5% shortfall of revenues on current expenditure, that is excluding all capital expenditure. By comparison the UK had a tiny surplus last year on this basis. Including capital expenditure it was 7.9% of GDP compared to a UK figure of 1.9%. The actual deficit was £13.4bn
These figures are almost identical to they previous year (£13.3bn) which is troubling because there was a much better contribution from North Sea Oil. It suggests to me that the underlying picture continues to deteriorate. In fairness, since April, the oil price has risen so we may see a similar boost from the North Sea in the current year but this is short term.
The challenge for Scotland, as I have said before, is to at least close the gap with rUK and ideally go beyond that into surplus. To achieve that we need to have a vibrant private sector economy and encourage entrepreneurs to set up businesses here. I don't think the current tax policies of the Scottish government are likely to achieve that, quite the reverse. The alternative is to cut Scottish public spending to nearer the UK average. I am pretty sure that the Scottish Government does not want to do that either. Unless Scotland does one or the other it is simply not ready for independence. But the Scottish Government doesn't want to hear that either.
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.
Emmmmmmmmm....raises arm....Australia....that countries approach to immigration, especially illegal, let’s use generous language and say a damn sight tougher than here. We don’t go sticking asylum seekers of particular skin colours on remote islands locked in cages with bugger all facilities for years on end. I think that is normally what people think about when it comes to xenophobia.
Just a thought. If I’m the unlikely case that all they pin on the Don is the stormy Daniels payoff, I wonder what the public will make of it?
Clinton in the end kinda got quite a lot of sympathy that he was hounded over really some in the grand scheme of things pretty irrelevant (other than to hiliary). Obviously we know there were loads more but my point was they didn’t get him with his hand in the till or something more serious.
Now this case has been built as mega mega serious, so far everybody seems to be getting done for tax fiddling etc, so what will the public make if rather than proving Russian collusion they prove a payoff to porn star we already know about?
I noted one or two of the usual suspects waxing lyrical about yesterday's borrowing figures and no doubt we will hear the usual siren calls for a Brexit tax cut given the Chancellor will have "wiggle room".
Instead of that waste of time and effort, Hammond should be sending a shedload of cash to hard pressed local authorities trying to resolve adult social care demand, the demands for extra school spaces and any of the myriad other issues which will no doubt fall out of Brexit and especially if we crash out without a deal.
It is appalling that a well-run council like East Sussex has to pare back community services and activities simply because of the exponential rise in demand for adult social care and a continuing reduction in Government grant.
Just a thought. If I’m the unlikely case that all they pin on the Don is the stormy Daniels payoff, I wonder what the public will make of it?
Clinton in the end kinda got quite a lot of sympathy that he was hounded over really some in the grand scheme of things pretty irrelevant (other than to hiliary). Obviously we know there were loads more but my point was they didn’t get him with his hand in the till or something more serious.
Now this case has been built as mega mega serious, so far everybody seems to be getting done for tax fiddling etc, so what will the public make if rather than proving Russian collusion they prove a payoff to porn star we already know about?
I thought that Stormy Daniels suing Trump because she had agreed to stay silent about their alleged affair and accepted a payoff to do so was truly eccentric, even by US litigation standards. I really cannot see people getting that excited about a pay off like that, even if it should have been declared as an election expense, particularly in a system that does not have spending limits (unless you accept Federal Funding).
I noted one or two of the usual suspects waxing lyrical about yesterday's borrowing figures and no doubt we will hear the usual siren calls for a Brexit tax cut given the Chancellor will have "wiggle room".
Instead of that waste of time and effort, Hammond should be sending a shedload of cash to hard pressed local authorities trying to resolve adult social care demand, the demands for extra school spaces and any of the myriad other issues which will no doubt fall out of Brexit and especially if we crash out without a deal.
It is appalling that a well-run council like East Sussex has to pare back community services and activities simply because of the exponential rise in demand for adult social care and a continuing reduction in Government grant.
I pretty much agree with that and said so yesterday as, in fairness, did other Tories such as @SeanF. There is enormous upward pressure on public spending at the moment in a whole range of areas but Social Care is near the top of the pile. I see no room for tax cuts, arguably the reverse in fact. We need a new income flow for social care and the capital of those receiving it is the obvious source.
I noted one or two of the usual suspects waxing lyrical about yesterday's borrowing figures and no doubt we will hear the usual siren calls for a Brexit tax cut given the Chancellor will have "wiggle room".
Instead of that waste of time and effort, Hammond should be sending a shedload of cash to hard pressed local authorities trying to resolve adult social care demand, the demands for extra school spaces and any of the myriad other issues which will no doubt fall out of Brexit and especially if we crash out without a deal.
It is appalling that a well-run council like East Sussex has to pare back community services and activities simply because of the exponential rise in demand for adult social care and a continuing reduction in Government grant.
I pretty much agree with that and said so yesterday as, in fairness, did other Tories such as @SeanF. There is enormous upward pressure on public spending at the moment in a whole range of areas but Social Care is near the top of the pile. I see no room for tax cuts, arguably the reverse in fact. We need a new income flow for social care and the capital of those receiving it is the obvious source.
'I don't think the current tax policies of the Scottish government are likely to achieve that, quite the reverse. The alternative is to cut Scottish public spending to nearer the UK average.'
So in summary, the UK government should be more like the Scottish government and the Scottish government should be more like the UK government? #confused
I noted one or two of the usual suspects waxing lyrical about yesterday's borrowing figures and no doubt we will hear the usual siren calls for a Brexit tax cut given the Chancellor will have "wiggle room".
Instead of that waste of time and effort, Hammond should be sending a shedload of cash to hard pressed local authorities trying to resolve adult social care demand, the demands for extra school spaces and any of the myriad other issues which will no doubt fall out of Brexit and especially if we crash out without a deal.
It is appalling that a well-run council like East Sussex has to pare back community services and activities simply because of the exponential rise in demand for adult social care and a continuing reduction in Government grant.
I pretty much agree with that and said so yesterday as, in fairness, did other Tories such as @SeanF. There is enormous upward pressure on public spending at the moment in a whole range of areas but Social Care is near the top of the pile. I see no room for tax cuts, arguably the reverse in fact. We need a new income flow for social care and the capital of those receiving it is the obvious source.
'I don't think the current tax policies of the Scottish government are likely to achieve that, quite the reverse. The alternative is to cut Scottish public spending to nearer the UK average.'
So in summary, the UK government should be more like the Scottish government and the Scottish government should be more like the UK government? #confused
I'm a great believer in the 'appropriately sized state'. Our demographics mean that taxes are going to have to rise. Not for that guy over there, or those rich bankers, but everyone. Sadly, not only are our politicians mediocre, they're also cowards.
I noted one or two of the usual suspects waxing lyrical about yesterday's borrowing figures and no doubt we will hear the usual siren calls for a Brexit tax cut given the Chancellor will have "wiggle room".
Instead of that waste of time and effort, Hammond should be sending a shedload of cash to hard pressed local authorities trying to resolve adult social care demand, the demands for extra school spaces and any of the myriad other issues which will no doubt fall out of Brexit and especially if we crash out without a deal.
It is appalling that a well-run council like East Sussex has to pare back community services and activities simply because of the exponential rise in demand for adult social care and a continuing reduction in Government grant.
I pretty much agree with that and said so yesterday as, in fairness, did other Tories such as @SeanF. There is enormous upward pressure on public spending at the moment in a whole range of areas but Social Care is near the top of the pile. I see no room for tax cuts, arguably the reverse in fact. We need a new income flow for social care and the capital of those receiving it is the obvious source.
'I don't think the current tax policies of the Scottish government are likely to achieve that, quite the reverse. The alternative is to cut Scottish public spending to nearer the UK average.'
So in summary, the UK government should be more like the Scottish government and the Scottish government should be more like the UK government? #confused
The Scottish public sector spent £1576 more per person than the UK average, up from £1448 the previous year. If we look at the Independence scenario we either bridge that gap by additional taxes or we cut spending. Neither look attractive, what we would want to do is improve our tax base so we can afford the extra without making ourselves uncompetitive as a place to do business.
The road to independence (not a road I wish to travel of course) is not by marches such as we saw in Dundee this weekend but in building a tax base that can sustain the public services we want and even want to improve. All Scottish government policies should be focussed on that objective but they are more interested in sweeties to buy votes.
How do Switzerland and Norway deal with the points raised by @DavidL ie people working in the black economy? Do they impose the same requirements on letting agents, doctors etc?
Interesting - and ironic - to note that a number of people have come up with stories of unfeeling, inflexible and incompetent bureaucrats and yet, judging by their posts, they tend to be the keenest on increasing state power and involvement in all areas of life. If the state cannot do what it is now doing well that is not the best argument for giving it even more powers or areas of competence, is it?
@NickPalmer: you might want to see if your relative could give someone competent a power of attorney to help him through his current predicament.
How do Switzerland and Norway deal with the points raised by @DavidL ie people working in the black economy? Do they impose the same requirements on letting agents, doctors etc?
Interesting - and ironic - to note that a number of people have come up with stories of unfeeling, inflexible and incompetent bureaucrats and yet, judging by their posts, they tend to be the keenest on increasing state power and involvement in all areas of life. If the state cannot do what it is now doing well that is not the best argument for giving it even more powers or areas of competence, is it?
@NickPalmer: you might want to see if your relative could give someone competent a power of attorney to help him through his current predicament.
What? Since when have I said anything that implied I wanted to increase state power and involvement in all areas of life. On the contrary I have the opposite view.
How do Switzerland and Norway deal with the points raised by @DavidL ie people working in the black economy? Do they impose the same requirements on letting agents, doctors etc?
Interesting - and ironic - to note that a number of people have come up with stories of unfeeling, inflexible and incompetent bureaucrats and yet, judging by their posts, they tend to be the keenest on increasing state power and involvement in all areas of life. If the state cannot do what it is now doing well that is not the best argument for giving it even more powers or areas of competence, is it?
@NickPalmer: you might want to see if your relative could give someone competent a power of attorney to help him through his current predicament.
What? Since when have I said anything that implied I wanted to increase state power and involvement in all areas of life. On the contrary I have the opposite view.
I pretty much agree with that and said so yesterday as, in fairness, did other Tories such as @SeanF. There is enormous upward pressure on public spending at the moment in a whole range of areas but Social Care is near the top of the pile. I see no room for tax cuts, arguably the reverse in fact. We need a new income flow for social care and the capital of those receiving it is the obvious source.
Thanks for the usual thoughtful response, David and I acknowledge you, Sean and others get it though one or two others were clearly salivating at the thought of a personal tax cut. In fairness, Theresa May gets it too but I'm not convinced throwing money at the NHS in isolation is the right approach. In terms of local councils, the antics of those running Northamptonshire should be condemned by all thinking Conservatives and that Council's extinction should be a welcome end to it.
OTOH, East Sussex faces a similar budget crisis not if its making and it seems absurd well-run authorities are facing the same hard decisions but is it not a consequence of the continuation of the absurdity of two-tier local Government? Dorset is disappearing next year as is Northants but how long can the likes of Surrey, East and West Sussex and others resist the pull towards unitary status?
How do Switzerland and Norway deal with the points raised by @DavidL ie people working in the black economy? Do they impose the same requirements on letting agents, doctors etc?
Interesting - and ironic - to note that a number of people have come up with stories of unfeeling, inflexible and incompetent bureaucrats and yet, judging by their posts, they tend to be the keenest on increasing state power and involvement in all areas of life. If the state cannot do what it is now doing well that is not the best argument for giving it even more powers or areas of competence, is it?
@NickPalmer: you might want to see if your relative could give someone competent a power of attorney to help him through his current predicament.
What? Since when have I said anything that implied I wanted to increase state power and involvement in all areas of life. On the contrary I have the opposite view.
Fair enough. My apologies to you.
No problem.
I am exceedingly frustrated by bureaucracy that seems to serve no purpose whatsoever. And I absolutely hate the 'jobs worth' mentality that produces nothing productive.
I pretty much agree with that and said so yesterday as, in fairness, did other Tories such as @SeanF. There is enormous upward pressure on public spending at the moment in a whole range of areas but Social Care is near the top of the pile. I see no room for tax cuts, arguably the reverse in fact. We need a new income flow for social care and the capital of those receiving it is the obvious source.
Thanks for the usual thoughtful response, David and I acknowledge you, Sean and others get it though one or two others were clearly salivating at the thought of a personal tax cut. In fairness, Theresa May gets it too but I'm not convinced throwing money at the NHS in isolation is the right approach. In terms of local councils, the antics of those running Northamptonshire should be condemned by all thinking Conservatives and that Council's extinction should be a welcome end to it.
OTOH, East Sussex faces a similar budget crisis not if its making and it seems absurd well-run authorities are facing the same hard decisions but is it not a consequence of the continuation of the absurdity of two-tier local Government? Dorset is disappearing next year as is Northants but how long can the likes of Surrey, East and West Sussex and others resist the pull towards unitary status?
The nightmare for Local Government is that they have a series of statutory duties imposed upon them such as Social Care, Social Work, education, local roads, etc. without any clear thought about how these services are to be funded. At the time the duties are imposed there is just about enough money but what we have seen is that these needs change over time. The cost of Social Care and children with additional needs are prime examples of this. As those demands increase all the other money that LAs had for other good things such as parks, business promotion, development, maintaining housing stock etc, get squeezed into oblivion. I take my hat off to those who serve in local government because it really can't be much fun at all.
Much of this government's rather modest austerity program (which has essentially involved public spending increasing but at a slower rate than hitherto and falling as a share of GDP) has fallen on local government. The pips are undoubtedly squeaking and more expenditure is clearly needed (unless various statutory duties are removed). Like you I think that money spent on Social Care may well do at least as much for the NHS as giving the money to the NHS itself by addressing bed blocking and providing a more appropriate, cheaper level of care for our frail and elderly. I remain to be convinced this can be done within current income flows.
Just a thought. If I’m the unlikely case that all they pin on the Don is the stormy Daniels payoff, I wonder what the public will make of it?
Clinton in the end kinda got quite a lot of sympathy that he was hounded over really some in the grand scheme of things pretty irrelevant (other than to hiliary). Obviously we know there were loads more but my point was they didn’t get him with his hand in the till or something more serious.
Now this case has been built as mega mega serious, so far everybody seems to be getting done for tax fiddling etc, so what will the public make if rather than proving Russian collusion they prove a payoff to porn star we already know about?
I agree. The Daniels payoff will not affect public opinion. What will get Trump is his own intemperate reaction to it by e.g. firing Mueller. He is his own worst enemy.
OTOH, East Sussex faces a similar budget crisis not if its making and it seems absurd well-run authorities are facing the same hard decisions but is it not a consequence of the continuation of the absurdity of two-tier local Government?
On the (excellent) video in the header: why don't more countries take this approach and penalise the enablers/employers of economic migrants? What is the political obstacle in doing so?
I get that there is an economic argument for tolerating a measure of cheap labour, but to make immigration such a central part of a political platform - as the Tories and Trump have done - and ignore measures such as this to tackle it seems bizarre.
I noted one or two of the usual suspects waxing lyrical about yesterday's borrowing figures and no doubt we will hear the usual siren calls for a Brexit tax cut given the Chancellor will have "wiggle room".
Instead of that waste of time and effort, Hammond should be sending a shedload of cash to hard pressed local authorities trying to resolve adult social care demand, the demands for extra school spaces and any of the myriad other issues which will no doubt fall out of Brexit and especially if we crash out without a deal.
It is appalling that a well-run council like East Sussex has to pare back community services and activities simply because of the exponential rise in demand for adult social care and a continuing reduction in Government grant.
I pretty much agree with that and said so yesterday as, in fairness, did other Tories such as @SeanF. There is enormous upward pressure on public spending at the moment in a whole range of areas but Social Care is near the top of the pile. I see no room for tax cuts, arguably the reverse in fact. We need a new income flow for social care and the capital of those receiving it is the obvious source.
'I don't think the current tax policies of the Scottish government are likely to achieve that, quite the reverse. The alternative is to cut Scottish public spending to nearer the UK average.'
So in summary, the UK government should be more like the Scottish government and the Scottish government should be more like the UK government? #confused
The Scottish public sector spent £1576 more per person than the UK average, up from £1448 the previous year. If we look at the Independence scenario we either bridge that gap by additional taxes or we cut spending. Neither look attractive, what we would want to do is improve our tax base so we can afford the extra without making ourselves uncompetitive as a place to do business.
The road to independence (not a road I wish to travel of course) is not by marches such as we saw in Dundee this weekend but in building a tax base that can sustain the public services we want and even want to improve. All Scottish government policies should be focussed on that objective but they are more interested in sweeties to buy votes.
Thank goodness there isn't an upcoming event that by afaik every objective study will affect the tax base in the short to medium term.
Indeed. There's a MASSIVE psychological barrier to that. It's like putting a question in a poll:
"Were you wrong?"
With the implicit:
"I mean, on one of the biggest political decisions of your lifetime and certainly the biggest one that's ever been given to the people to decide; one with huge and on-running repercussions for the economy and national identity, sovereignty and the make-up of government itself... will you now tell us you were wrong?"
I mean, on either side, anyone who does change their mind on it is to be applauded - whether Remain to Leave, or Leave to Remain, but I do think the chances of any major opinion swing on this are slim.
Thanks for the usual thoughtful response, David and I acknowledge you, Sean and others get it though one or two others were clearly salivating at the thought of a personal tax cut. In fairness, Theresa May gets it too but I'm not convinced throwing money at the NHS in isolation is the right approach. In terms of local councils, the antics of those running Northamptonshire should be condemned by all thinking Conservatives and that Council's extinction should be a welcome end to it.
OTOH, East Sussex faces a similar budget crisis not if its making and it seems absurd well-run authorities are facing the same hard decisions but is it not a consequence of the continuation of the absurdity of two-tier local Government? Dorset is disappearing next year as is Northants but how long can the likes of Surrey, East and West Sussex and others resist the pull towards unitary status?
The nightmare for Local Government is that they have a series of statutory duties imposed upon them such as Social Care, Social Work, education, local roads, etc. without any clear thought about how these services are to be funded. At the time the duties are imposed there is just about enough money but what we have seen is that these needs change over time. The cost of Social Care and children with additional needs are prime examples of this. As those demands increase all the other money that LAs had for other good things such as parks, business promotion, development, maintaining housing stock etc, get squeezed into oblivion. I take my hat off to those who serve in local government because it really can't be much fun at all.
Much of this government's rather modest austerity program (which has essentially involved public spending increasing but at a slower rate than hitherto and falling as a share of GDP) has fallen on local government. The pips are undoubtedly squeaking and more expenditure is clearly needed (unless various statutory duties are removed). Like you I think that money spent on Social Care may well do at least as much for the NHS as giving the money to the NHS itself by addressing bed blocking and providing a more appropriate, cheaper level of care for our frail and elderly. I remain to be convinced this can be done within current income flows.
Perhaps we do need to consider whether some statutory duties should be removed from local authorities, as well as think about extra funding.
It is not obvious to me why the authority which collects bins, issues parking permits and runs parks is the right body to provide care for the elderly or look after children in need. Maybe social care should be linked to the NHS - there are more obvious synergies there and it might well lead to more joined up thinking about the care of the elderly, which is almost always a mix of social and health care.
The nightmare for Local Government is that they have a series of statutory duties imposed upon them such as Social Care, Social Work, education, local roads, etc. without any clear thought about how these services are to be funded. At the time the duties are imposed there is just about enough money but what we have seen is that these needs change over time. The cost of Social Care and children with additional needs are prime examples of this. As those demands increase all the other money that LAs had for other good things such as parks, business promotion, development, maintaining housing stock etc, get squeezed into oblivion. I take my hat off to those who serve in local government because it really can't be much fun at all.
Much of this government's rather modest austerity program (which has essentially involved public spending increasing but at a slower rate than hitherto and falling as a share of GDP) has fallen on local government. The pips are undoubtedly squeaking and more expenditure is clearly needed (unless various statutory duties are removed). Like you I think that money spent on Social Care may well do at least as much for the NHS as giving the money to the NHS itself by addressing bed blocking and providing a more appropriate, cheaper level of care for our frail and elderly. I remain to be convinced this can be done within current income flows.
Perhaps we do need to consider whether some statutory duties should be removed from local authorities, as well as think about extra funding.
It is not obvious to me why the authority which collects bins, issues parking permits and runs parks is the right body to provide care for the elderly or look after children in need. Maybe social care should be linked to the NHS - there are more obvious synergies there and it might well lead to more joined up thinking about the care of the elderly, which is almost always a mix of social and health care.
At national level that happened when the Department of Health became the Department of Health and Social Care. How that works on the ground I am really not sure. The other problem is that the NHS is already the biggest employer in Europe. Is extending it's reach into thousands of care homes, domiciliary care and the fragmented system we currently have a good idea? I fear the synergies may disappear into the bureaucracy.
On the (excellent) video in the header: why don't more countries take this approach and penalise the enablers/employers of economic migrants? What is the political obstacle in doing so?
I get that there is an economic argument for tolerating a measure of cheap labour, but to make immigration such a central part of a political platform - as the Tories and Trump have done - and ignore measures such as this to tackle it seems bizarre.
The Tories haven’t ignored it. They have to ome extent targeted employers of illegal immigrants and others who enable it. And look at the immense amount of grief they have received. Those charged with some duties eg doctors have insisted that this should be for the Border Force and refuse to accept that demand for free health care may be some small part of the issue and that therefore no steps should be done to make it less accessible. Or look at the wailing by @Roger over his friend who employed an illegal and complained about the consequences.
But it is very hard to enact any sensible measures when a large part of the opposition don’t think that there should be any controls on immigration, whether legal or illegal.
I suspect that the reason these measures work in Switzerland and Norway is because there is much more unity amongst the populace about them.
I pretty much agree with that and said so yesterday as, in fairness, did other Tories such as @SeanF. There is enormous upward pressure on public spending at the moment in a whole range of areas but Social Care is near the top of the pile. I see no room for tax cuts, arguably the reverse in fact. We need a new income flow for social care and the capital of those receiving it is the obvious source.
Thanks for the usual thoughtful response, David and I acknowledge you, Sean and others get it though one ?
The nightmare for Local Government is that they have a series of statutory duties imposed upon them such as Social Care, Social Work, education, local roads, etc. without any clear thought about how these services are to be funded. At the time the duties are imposed there is just about enough money but what we have seen is that these needs change over time. The cost of Social Care and children with additional needs are prime examples of this. As those demands increase all the other money that LAs had for other good things such as parks, business promotion, development, maintaining housing stock etc, get squeezed into oblivion. I take my hat off to those who serve in local government because it really can't be much fun at all.
Much of this government's rather modest austerity program (which has essentially involved public spending increasing but at a slower rate than hitherto and falling as a share of GDP) has fallen on local government. The pips are undoubtedly squeaking and more expenditure is clearly needed (unless various statutory duties are removed). Like you I think that money spent on Social Care may well do at least as much for the NHS as giving the money to the NHS itself by addressing bed blocking and providing a more appropriate, cheaper level of care for our frail and elderly. I remain to be convinced this can be done within current income flows.
Certainly better social care would help the NHS, but here in Leicester and Leicestershire we seem to be doing better than most in this area, yet in August we are cancelling admissions due to not having elective beds. We need at least two more medical wards, but also significant capital investment to restructure our estate. Without those beds our operating theatres and surgical teams cannot be efficient.
Capital spending has been squeezed over the last decade, and from the point of view of the CoE such spending has the advantage of economic stimulus without too much recurrent costs.
The nightmare for Local Government is that they have a series of statutory duties imposed upon them such as Social Care, Social Work, education, local roads, etc. without any clear thought about how these services are to be funded. At the time the duties are imposed there is just about enough money but what we have seen is that these needs change over time. The cost of Social Care and children with additional needs are prime examples of this. As those demands increase all the other money that LAs had for other good things such as parks, business promotion, development, maintaining housing stock etc, get squeezed into oblivion. I take my hat off to those who serve in local government because it really can't be much fun at all.
Much of this government's rather modest austerity program (which has essentially involved public spending increasing but at a slower rate than hitherto and falling as a share of GDP) has fallen on local government. The pips are undoubtedly squeaking and more expenditure is clearly needed (unless various statutory duties are removed). Like you I think that money spent on Social Care may well do at least as much for the NHS as giving the money to the NHS itself by addressing bed blocking and providing a more appropriate, cheaper level of care for our frail and elderly. I remain to be convinced this can be done within current income flows.
Perhaps we do need to consider whether some statutory duties should be removed from local authorities, as well as think about extra funding.
It is not obvious to me why the authority which collects bins, issues parking permits and runs parks is the right body to provide care for the elderly or look after children in need. Maybe social care should be linked to the NHS - there are more obvious synergies there and it might well lead to more joined up thinking about the care of the elderly, which is almost always a mix of social and health care.
At national level that happened when the Department of Health became the Department of Health and Social Care. How that works on the ground I am really not sure. The other problem is that the NHS is already the biggest employer in Europe. Is extending it's reach into thousands of care homes, domiciliary care and the fragmented system we currently have a good idea? I fear the synergies may disappear into the bureaucracy.
That is a fair point. But are councils the obvious providers? Why?
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.
I don't think it's unreasonable to require Landlords, Employers, or Banks to check the immigration status of those that they deal with.
How do Switzerland and Norway deal with the points raised by @DavidL ie people working in the black economy? Do they impose the same requirements on letting agents, doctors etc?
Interesting - and ironic - to note that a number of people have come up with stories of unfeeling, inflexible and incompetent bureaucrats and yet, judging by their posts, they tend to be the keenest on increasing state power and involvement in all areas of life. If the state cannot do what it is now doing well that is not the best argument for giving it even more powers or areas of competence, is it?
@NickPalmer: you might want to see if your relative could give someone competent a power of attorney to help him through his current predicament.
My relative is extremely sensitive - breaking away from his awful home, he built up a successful professional career, then was sacked after a spell of depression and has been gradually recovering after years of deep despair. Offering to do things for him usually runs into a distressed and/or angry reaction. I know it seems reasonable, but there's no law that says that people in difficulty must be reasonable. One has to take things one step at a time. I wouldn't be discussing it here normally, but it illustrates the downside of strict rules - they may catch genuine criminals and illegals, but they also snare people who are perfectly legal and just have run into difficulties beyond their control.
I've not found most "bureaucrats" to be unfeeling at all - they usually help within the limits of their powers and often are quite upset that they can't do more. I'm in favour of giving them more power to act helpfully and more flexibility. Privatising them to someone who not only has all kinds of rules but also needs to meet profit targets seems to me a REALLY bad idea - anything to do with migration, social care, housing etc. really needs to be done by public servants.
The Swiss in my experience don't outsource monitoring to rental agents, doctors, etc. - the police are quite tough in enforcing the rules, but they don't expect anyone else to do their work for them. I never had to prove right of residence to anyone except the cops.
The nightmare for Local Government is that they have a series of statutory duties imposed upon them such as Social Care, Social Work, education, local roads, etc. without any clear thought about how these services are to be funded. At the time the duties are imposed there is just about enough money but what we have seen is that these needs change over time. The cost of Social Care and children with additional needs are prime examples of this. As those demands increase all the other money that LAs had for other good things such as parks, business promotion, development, maintaining housing stock etc, get squeezed into oblivion. I take my hat off to those who serve in local government because it really can't be much fun at all.
Much of this government's rather modest austerity program (which has essentially involved public spending increasing but at a slower rate than hitherto and falling as a share of GDP) has fallen on local government. The pips are undoubtedly squeaking and more expenditure is clearly needed (unless various statutory duties are removed). Like you I think that money spent on Social Care may well do at least as much for the NHS as giving the money to the NHS itself by addressing bed blocking and providing a more appropriate, cheaper level of care for our frail and elderly. I remain to be convinced this can be done within current income flows.
Unfortunately because the Coalition couldn't or wouldn't apply the same funding strictures to the NHS and Education, the weight of reducing borrowing and the deficit fell disproportionately on local Government. Yes, it was good to see functions decentralised from Whitehall but decentralisation without resources is no solution.
As a supporter of the Coalition, I look back on that with profound disappointment and as you say other areas of local Government activity suffer. It's a small thing but verges don't get cut so residents complain and officer time is spent dealing with those complaints when keeping the verges clear and neat would have been a cheaper option.
That's the problem - most people still expect "the Council" to do anything and everything but as soon as you tell them what that costs they bring out the pitchforks. Local Councils "could" live without Government grants but Council Tax would have to double or even triple in some areas to meet the shortfall.
Unfortunately, 30-40 years of anti-tax media propaganda has meant the merest hint of raising taxes is met with incredulity but I don't see any viable options until the economic culture of our society changes.
Indeed. There's a MASSIVE psychological barrier to that. It's like putting a question in a poll:
"Were you wrong?"
With the implicit:
"I mean, on one of the biggest political decisions of your lifetime and certainly the biggest one that's ever been given to the people to decide; one with huge and on-running repercussions for the economy and national identity, sovereignty and the make-up of government itself... will you now tell us you were wrong?"
I mean, on either side, anyone who does change their mind on it is to be applauded - whether Remain to Leave, or Leave to Remain, but I do think the chances of any major opinion swing on this are slim.
Spot on. Nor is it a reversible process, so you can't go back and "correct" it. Interesting, albeit partisan, take on the psychology from Brendan O'Neill here
I pretty much agree with that and said so yesterday as, in fairness, did other Tories such as @SeanF. There is enormous upward pressure on public spending at the moment in a whole range of areas but Social Care is near the top of the pile. I see no room for tax cuts, arguably the reverse in fact. We need a new income flow for social care and the capital of those receiving it is the obvious source.
s but how long can the likes of Surrey, East and West Sussex and others resist the pull towards unitary status?
The nightmare for Local Government is that they have a series of statutory duties imposed upon them such as Social Care, Social Work, education, local roads, etc. without any clear thought about how these services are to be funded. At the time the duties are imposed there is just about enough money but what we have seen is that these needs change over time. The cost of Social Care and children with additional needs are prime examples of this. As those demands increase all the other money that LAs had for other good things such as parks, business promotion, development, maintaining housing stock etc, get squeezed into oblivion. I take my hat off to those who serve in local government because it really can't be much fun at all.
Much of this government's rather modest austerity program (which has essentially involved public spending increasing but at a slower rate than hitherto and falling as a share of GDP) has fallen on local government. The pips are undoubtedly squeaking and more expenditure is clearly needed (unless various statutory duties are removed). Like you I think that money spent on Social Care may well do at least as much for the NHS as giving the money to the NHS itself by addressing bed blocking and providing a more appropriate, cheaper level of care for our frail and elderly. I remain to be convinced this can be done within current income flows.
I agree that it is pointless to seek tax reductions at this stage. Although there is a tendency to cry wolf in the public sector, there is little doubt that local government is now suffering, and cannot provide the services which it is required to provide on current income levels.
Assuming that the government has about £10bn more to play with than it expected, I'd spend it on increasing local government funding, increasing funding on the criminal justice system, and increasing defence expenditure, in that order of priority.
The nightmare for Local Government is that they have a series of statutory duties imposed upon them such as Social Care, Social Work, education, local roads, etc. without any clear thought about how these services are to be funded. At the time the duties are imposed there is just about enough money but what we have seen is that these needs change over time. The cost of Social Care and children with additional needs are prime examples of this. As those demands increase all the other money that LAs had for other good things such as parks, business promotion, development, maintaining housing stock etc, get squeezed into oblivion. I take my hat off to those who serve in local government because it really can't be much fun at all.
Much of this government's rather modest austerity program (which has essentially involved public spending increasing but at a slower rate than hitherto and falling as a share of GDP) has fallen on local government. The pips are undoubtedly squeaking and more expenditure is clearly needed (unless various statutory duties are removed). Like you I think that money spent on Social Care may well do at least as much for the NHS as giving the money to the NHS itself by addressing bed blocking and providing a more appropriate, cheaper level of care for our frail and elderly. I remain to be convinced this can be done within current income flows.
Perhaps we do need to consider whether some statutory duties should be removed from local authorities, as well as think about extra funding.
It is not obvious to me why the authority which collects bins, issues parking permits and runs parks is the right body to provide care for the elderly or look after children in need. Maybe social care should be linked to the NHS - there are more obvious synergies there and it might well lead to more joined up thinking about the care of the elderly, which is almost always a mix of social and health care.
At national level that happened when the Department of Health became the Department of Health and Social Care. How that works on the ground I am really not sure. The other problem is that the NHS is already the biggest employer in Europe. Is extending it's reach into thousands of care homes, domiciliary care and the fragmented system we currently have a good idea? I fear the synergies may disappear into the bureaucracy.
That is a fair point. But are councils the obvious providers? Why?
The challenge is to find the right size of unit which touches on some of the Unitary Authority issues that @Stodge mentioned. That might be LAs or it might not.
Indeed. There's a MASSIVE psychological barrier to that. It's like putting a question in a poll:
"Were you wrong?"
With the implicit:
"I mean, on one of the biggest political decisions of your lifetime and certainly the biggest one that's ever been given to the people to decide; one with huge and on-running repercussions for the economy and national identity, sovereignty and the make-up of government itself... will you now tell us you were wrong?"
I mean, on either side, anyone who does change their mind on it is to be applauded - whether Remain to Leave, or Leave to Remain, but I do think the chances of any major opinion swing on this are slim.
Spot on. Nor is it a reversible process, so you can't go back and "correct" it. Interesting, albeit partisan, take on the psychology from Brendan O'Neill here
Would be interesting to know the split between.
"Wrong and yet we should do it anyway, because that is how democracy works" vs "Wrong and I'm going to keep whining about it and do everything I can to reverse it"
I suspect the former camp will be why we move on from the matter, and accept Brexit. I know exactly two people who fall into the latter camp; everyone else amongst my acquaintances is a democrat.
Interesting - and ironic - to note that a number of people have come up with stories of unfeeling, inflexible and incompetent bureaucrats and yet, judging by their posts, they tend to be the keenest on increasing state power and involvement in all areas of life. If the state cannot do what it is now doing well that is not the best argument for giving it even more powers or areas of competence, is it?
@NickPalmer: you might want to see if your relative could give someone competent a power of attorney to help him through his current predicament.
My relative is extremely sensitive - breaking away from his awful home, he built up a successful professional career, then was sacked after a spell of depression and has been gradually recovering after years of deep despair. Offering to do things for him usually runs into a distressed and/or angry reaction. I know it seems reasonable, but there's no law that says that people in difficulty must be reasonable. One has to take things one step at a time. I wouldn't be discussing it here normally, but it illustrates the downside of strict rules - they may catch genuine criminals and illegals, but they also snare people who are perfectly legal and just have run into difficulties beyond their control.
I've not found most "bureaucrats" to be unfeeling at all - they usually help within the limits of their powers and often are quite upset that they can't do more. I'm in favour of giving them more power to act helpfully and more flexibility. Privatising them to someone who not only has all kinds of rules but also needs to meet profit targets seems to me a REALLY bad idea - anything to do with migration, social care, housing etc. really needs to be done by public servants.
The Swiss in my experience don't outsource monitoring to rental agents, doctors, etc. - the police are quite tough in enforcing the rules, but they don't expect anyone else to do their work for them. I never had to prove right of residence to anyone except the cops.
I agree that some things are best done in the public sector - and should be done well. Power to act flexibly is fine. It’s when you give over-stretched public servants more to do without the resources that you get everything being done badly and an emphasis on processes without judgment. One must always be wary of that. It’s both a question of resources but also an attitude problem ie viewing the procedure as more important than the outcome, which is a trap all bureaucracies have a tendency to fall into.
Anyway I hope your relative gets the help he needs. A power of attorney may be worth looking into because people like your relative, and I have had some experience of this with friends, often need a sensible friend to help them through who is not phased by bureaucracy or difficult clients.
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.
I don't think it's unreasonable to require Landlords, Employers, or Banks to check the immigration status of those that they deal with.
Nor do I but it is not winning the government many friends.
Perhaps we do need to consider whether some statutory duties should be removed from local authorities, as well as think about extra funding.
It is not obvious to me why the authority which collects bins, issues parking permits and runs parks is the right body to provide care for the elderly or look after children in need. Maybe social care should be linked to the NHS - there are more obvious synergies there and it might well lead to more joined up thinking about the care of the elderly, which is almost always a mix of social and health care.
I'm not huge on centralising more power and decision-making in Whitehall - I don't think it has served us well over the past 30-40 years.
"Care", as you say, covers a multitude of sins. For many, indeed most, care isn't about moving into as residential or nursing home but having some help round the house with cleaning, washing all the way through the provision of meals to help getting dressed and washed and so on.
That is the area where the crunch exists - should we have a single National Home Care Organisation? Perhaps, perhaps not. One of the advantages of local provision is continuity - when my late father had domiciliary care he always liked it when the same woman turned up as he got to know her.
The other aspect of this is the industry of assessment - local councils have large numbers of finance staff whose sole responsibility is or are assessments for care because that's how we want to do it (a means test). We could simply have free care for all paid for by increased general taxation - that would be credible and less complex for the older person.
Perhaps then those doing the care will be properly financially rewarded but, more important, their workloads would be cut because a huge part of the care provided is the company and the conversation. If each carer could have 60 minutes with each client, the quality of care and the quality of lives would be significantly enhanced.
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.
I don't think it's unreasonable to require Landlords, Employers, or Banks to check the immigration status of those that they deal with.
Nor do I but it is not winning the government many friends.
As it happens, I don't think it's done the government any harm at all, among centre-right voters.
Mr. Cooke, on the psychology, if a referendum were May's Terrible Deal or Remain, that helps Remain.
Leavers could, legitimately, say: we're better off out. But the deal May has negotiated is so ****ing atrocious we get the disadvantages of membership without the benefits of leaving. We'd be better off in compared to leaving on such terms.
I do think Remain could win such a referendum. They could try to pose it as a question of confidence in May's dithering capitulation of a negotiation.
In a Leave/Remain straight up vote, Leave, I think, would win handily.
This might be an unpopular view (well, I know it is) but I have little sympathy for the principle that the costs of social care should be born by the working taxpayer, rather than those with very substantial assets who simply want to protect their kids inheritance. Most of my council tax goes on social care as it is, which is irrelevant to me and I view as an irrelevant waste, whilst other services I do use are stripped to the bone.
People should take responsibility to look after themselves as best as possible first by using their own assets, with help from their own families.
Only in exceptional circumstances should there be a call on the State, which effectively means the working taxpayer.
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.
I don't think it's unreasonable to require Landlords, Employers, or Banks to check the immigration status of those that they deal with.
Nor do I but it is not winning the government many friends.
It would be reasonable if there was a single, trustworthy and secure way of proving one's right to residence, i.e. ID cards. Unfortunately the Tories got rid of those. This leaves multiple loopholes in the system that cause needless pain to some individuals, cf the Windrush case.
Yes, hardly a ringing endorsement according to the report.
I believe this has been kicking around Notts for years, with no resolution.
It's farcical. The city should expand to the Derbyshire boundary and cover both sides of the Trent. Forest's ground is not officially in Nottingham despite being only one mile from the city centre.
Indeed. There's a MASSIVE psychological barrier to that. It's like putting a question in a poll:
"Were you wrong?"
With the implicit:
"I mean, on one of the biggest political decisions of your lifetime and certainly the biggest one that's ever been given to the people to decide; one with huge and on-running repercussions for the economy and national identity, sovereignty and the make-up of government itself... will you now tell us you were wrong?"
I mean, on either side, anyone who does change their mind on it is to be applauded - whether Remain to Leave, or Leave to Remain, but I do think the chances of any major opinion swing on this are slim.
Spot on. Nor is it a reversible process, so you can't go back and "correct" it. Interesting, albeit partisan, take on the psychology from Brendan O'Neill here
Would be interesting to know the split between.
"Wrong and yet we should do it anyway, because that is how democracy works" vs "Wrong and I'm going to keep whining about it and do everything I can to reverse it"
I suspect the former camp will be why we move on from the matter, and accept Brexit. I know exactly two people who fall into the latter camp; everyone else amongst my acquaintances is a democrat.
Your latter camp is I think reasonably small in number, but massively over-represented among those who work in politics, media and the arts, or live in London. Which is why we hear so much about them. The rest of the country just wants the politicians to get on with it.
Mr. Cooke, on the psychology, if a referendum were May's Terrible Deal or Remain, that helps Remain.
Leavers could, legitimately, say: we're better off out. But the deal May has negotiated is so ****ing atrocious we get the disadvantages of membership without the benefits of leaving. We'd be better off in compared to leaving on such terms.
Except, it would keep the whole issue live. There would be a massive popular movement created for Proppa Leave.
And it would have the whole of The Establishment in its sights.
On the (excellent) video in the header: why don't more countries take this approach and penalise the enablers/employers of economic migrants? What is the political obstacle in doing so?
I get that there is an economic argument for tolerating a measure of cheap labour, but to make immigration such a central part of a political platform - as the Tories and Trump have done - and ignore measures such as this to tackle it seems bizarre.
The Tories haven’t ignored it. They have to ome extent targeted employers of illegal immigrants and others who enable it. And look at the immense amount of grief they have received. Those charged with some duties eg doctors have insisted that this should be for the Border Force and refuse to accept that demand for free health care may be some small part of the issue and that therefore no steps should be done to make it less accessible. Or look at the wailing by @Roger over his friend who employed an illegal and complained about the consequences.
But it is very hard to enact any sensible measures when a large part of the opposition don’t think that there should be any controls on immigration, whether legal or illegal.
I suspect that the reason these measures work in Switzerland and Norway is because there is much more unity amongst the populace about them.
Why do you expert doctors to be experts on the UK visa and immigration system? Is it really a good use of their (very limited) time to have to learn the difference in entitlements between, say a marriage visitor visa (no NHS entitlement) vs Tier 2 student (entitled)? Even if you have comprehensive knowledge of the system, the rules are constantly changing.
Similarly, do you expect Landlords to become experts in spotting forged passports and residence permits?
Politics today is a curious mixture of total panic and total stasis.
The only scenario deemed likely to improve Tory prospects, according to the poll, was if the party was led by an unspecified person who was “quite young and able [and] not currently in government”.
Mr. Mark, but if the choice were May-Leave or Remain, rather than Actually Leave that would be eminently winnable for Remain.
You're right it'd cause a justified spike in resentment of the political class, but in purely mechanical terms, the pro-EU side would have a strong chance of winning the referendum, albeit by stoking up public disenchantment with politics.
This might be an unpopular view (well, I know it is) but I have little sympathy for the principle that the costs of social care should be born by the working taxpayer, rather than those with very substantial assets who simply want to protect their kids inheritance. Most of my council tax goes on social care as it is, which is irrelevant to me and I view as an irrelevant waste, whilst other services I do use are stripped to the bone.
People should take responsibility to look after themselves as best as possible first by using their own assets, with help from their own families.
Only in exceptional circumstances should there be a call on the State, which effectively means the working taxpayer.
I agree that if you have savings for a rainy day, when those rainy days come, you should use those savings. But as we saw during last year’s election campaign, that was a rather unpopular view.
Having made so much of protecting and increasing peoples’ inheritances, the Tories were rather hoist by their own petard when they were seen as threatening it. But an inheritance should come second to not expecting others, often poorer than you, to pay for your care when you need it.
Mr. Mark, but if the choice were May-Leave or Remain, rather than Actually Leave that would be eminently winnable for Remain.
You're right it'd cause a justified spike in resentment of the political class, but in purely mechanical terms, the pro-EU side would have a strong chance of winning the referendum, albeit by stoking up public disenchantment with politics.
And if the anti-EU side boycott the second referendum?
On the (excellent) video in the header: why don't more countries take this approach and penalise the enablers/employers of economic migrants? What is the political obstacle in doing so?
I get that there is an economic argument for tolerating a measure of cheap labour, but to make immigration such a central part of a political platform - as the Tories and Trump have done - and ignore measures such as this to tackle it seems bizarre.
The Tories haven’t ignored it. They have to ome extent targeted employers of illegal immigrants and others who enable it. And look at the immense amount of grief they have received. Those charged with some duties eg doctors have insisted that this should be for the Border Force and refuse to accept that demand for free health care may be some small part of the issue and that therefore no steps should be done to make it less accessible. Or look at the wailing by @Roger over his friend who employed an illegal and complained about the consequences.
But it is very hard to enact any sensible measures when a large part of the opposition don’t think that there should be any controls on immigration, whether legal or illegal.
I suspect that the reason these measures work in Switzerland and Norway is because there is much more unity amongst the populace about them.
Why do you expert doctors to be experts on the UK visa and immigration system? Is it really a good use of their (very limited) time to have to learn the difference in entitlements between, say a marriage visitor visa (no NHS entitlement) vs Tier 2 student (entitled)? Even if you have comprehensive knowledge of the system, the rules are constantly changing.
Similarly, do you expect Landlords to become experts in spotting forged passports and residence permits?
Doctors are also employers so would need to know the rules in that capacity. Ditto for managing agents. But your point argues for making the system simpler not for having no checks at all - and for making the requirement to take all “reasonable” steps.
On the (excellent) video in the header: why don't more countries take this approach and penalise the enablers/employers of economic migrants? What is the political obstacle in doing so?
I get that there is an economic argument for tolerating a measure of cheap labour, but to make immigration such a central part of a political platform - as the Tories and Trump have done - and ignore measures such as this to tackle it seems bizarre.
The Tories haven’t ignored it. They have to ome extent targeted employers of illegal immigrants and others who enable it. And look at the immense amount of grief they have received. Those charged with some duties eg doctors have insisted that this should be for the Border Force and refuse to accept that demand for free health care may be some small part of the issue and that therefore no steps should be done to make it less accessible. Or look at the wailing by @Roger over his friend who employed an illegal and complained about the consequences.
But it is very hard to enact any sensible measures when a large part of the opposition don’t think that there should be any controls on immigration, whether legal or illegal.
I suspect that the reason these measures work in Switzerland and Norway is because there is much more unity amongst the populace about them.
Why do you expert doctors to be experts on the UK visa and immigration system? Is it really a good use of their (very limited) time to have to learn the difference in entitlements between, say a marriage visitor visa (no NHS entitlement) vs Tier 2 student (entitled)? Even if you have comprehensive knowledge of the system, the rules are constantly changing.
Similarly, do you expect Landlords to become experts in spotting forged passports and residence permits?
I see it in much the same light as my having to check the identities of new clients.
Mr. Mark, but if the choice were May-Leave or Remain, rather than Actually Leave that would be eminently winnable for Remain.
You're right it'd cause a justified spike in resentment of the political class, but in purely mechanical terms, the pro-EU side would have a strong chance of winning the referendum, albeit by stoking up public disenchantment with politics.
And if the anti-EU side boycott the second referendum?
They'd have no reason to complain at the result. The majority would say tough. You had your chance.
This might be an unpopular view (well, I know it is) but I have little sympathy for the principle that the costs of social care should be born by the working taxpayer, rather than those with very substantial assets who simply want to protect their kids inheritance. Most of my council tax goes on social care as it is, which is irrelevant to me and I view as an irrelevant waste, whilst other services I do use are stripped to the bone.
People should take responsibility to look after themselves as best as possible first by using their own assets, with help from their own families.
Only in exceptional circumstances should there be a call on the State, which effectively means the working taxpayer.
A few years ago I might have been more likely to agree with you but getting past 80 and not being quite as spry as I was causes me furiously to think! And count my pennies!
That isn’t to say that I think the present system is, in practice, within a light-year or two of being ideal. I my working life I was seconded ‘as necessary’ to the predecessor of the CQC and while in my limited experience LA Homes were, in my time visiting them not the ‘best' they were not by any manner of means the worst, either!
Adult and Child Social Care accounts for 60% of our County Council expenditure and is projected to reach 80% as the population ages.
The planned takeover of the District Councils which are very much smaller will save a small amount overall but is not a long term solution to the social care issue.
Firstly there is a need to change people's expectation that when they get old the council should pay their housing, food and utility bills. The NHS is there to deal with bad health not your daily upkeep.
Keeping more people in their own homes when they get old will help with changing people's mindset and also means they remain within a familiar environment rather than going into a home or hospital. It also means people should understand they still neeed to pay for their own accommodation, food, and utility bills.
It will mean we (local councils) need to get better at supporting people so they stay in their own home when they get older.
On the (excellent) video in the header: why don't more countries take this approach and penalise the enablers/employers of economic migrants? What is the political obstacle in doing so?
I get that there is an economic argument for tolerating a measure of cheap labour, but to make immigration such a central part of a political platform - as the Tories and Trump have done - and ignore measures such as this to tackle it seems bizarre.
The Tories haven’t ignored it. They have to ome extent targeted employers of illegal immigrants and others who enable it. And look at the immense amount of grief they have received. Those charged with some duties eg doctors have insisted that this should be for the Border Force and refuse to accept that demand for free health care may be some small part of the issue and that therefore no steps should be done to make it less accessible. Or look at the wailing by @Roger over his friend who employed an illegal and complained about the consequences.
But it is very hard to enact any sensible measures when a large part of the opposition don’t think that there should be any controls on immigration, whether legal or illegal.
I suspect that the reason these measures work in Switzerland and Norway is because there is much more unity amongst the populace about them.
Why do you expert doctors to be experts on the UK visa and immigration system? Is it really a good use of their (very limited) time to have to learn the difference in entitlements between, say a marriage visitor visa (no NHS entitlement) vs Tier 2 student (entitled)? Even if you have comprehensive knowledge of the system, the rules are constantly changing.
Similarly, do you expect Landlords to become experts in spotting forged passports and residence permits?
Doctors are also employers so would need to know the rules in that capacity. Ditto for managing agents. But your point argues for making the system simpler not for having no checks at all - and for making the requirement to take all “reasonable” steps.
Not using an agent for a buy-to-let seems madness to me these days, given all the checks, safety stuff, PAT testing, smoke alarm checks etc etc.
This might be an unpopular view (well, I know it is) but I have little sympathy for the principle that the costs of social care should be born by the working taxpayer, rather than those with very substantial assets who simply want to protect their kids inheritance. Most of my council tax goes on social care as it is, which is irrelevant to me and I view as an irrelevant waste, whilst other services I do use are stripped to the bone.
People should take responsibility to look after themselves as best as possible first by using their own assets, with help from their own families.
Only in exceptional circumstances should there be a call on the State, which effectively means the working taxpayer.
It's a credible line and indeed speaks to the traditional conservative values of family and self-responsibility. I can't agree on "social care" being an irrelevant waste - I don't use the education service in Newham though I contribute to it and I don't see that as an "irrelevant waste". Just because you don't use something doesn't mean it doesn't have a value to others.
The Conservatives have also gone strong on "inheritance" - you're correct of course it's not a sacred right and I was appalled by the 2017 Conservative manifesto proposal to substantially raise the value of "untouchable" assets from £23,500 where it currently sits.
Yet when I argued that was wrong and simply shifted the financial burden onto the rest of us the pro-May loyalists howled in anger.
Most people simply don't have the funding or the assets to support prolonged periods of even basic residential care yet alone dementia or nursing care and what happens when the asset well runs dry?
I'm a working taxpayer too - I don't begrudge elderly people I don't know being well looked after in their latter years. Short of providing all care free funded out of general taxation, I'm pushed to see an alternative that works.
Politics today is a curious mixture of total panic and total stasis.
It does however kill stone dead the idea that presenting the membership with Hunt v Gove would be a wizard wheeze for MPs to engineer.
They would lose their seats.
Quietly good news for Javid.
It's not as simple as asking voters whom they prefer, because a key point is how a particular potential leader would shape policy, set up a good-quality team who work together well, and get a grip on the party. Voters don't have a clue about that, whereas MPs, who see these people in action close-up, should have a much better idea.
Also this poll was rather odd - it didn't ask respondents which potential leader they'd prefer themselves, it asked them whether X would improve the chances of the party. That's a curious Keynesian Beauty Contest sort of question, and hard to interpret.
So, whilst I agree that it is quietly good news for Javid, I wouldn't attach too much credence to it.
Yes, hardly a ringing endorsement according to the report.
There are two rival models - merging all non-Nottingham councils into the county (many Conservatives like this) and merging all suburban councils into the city (many Labour people like this). The problem, crudely speaking, is that fairly prosperous Nottingham suburbs feel little in common either with deprived inner-city wards like the Meadows or distant and deprived northern county towns like Mansfield, and correctly think they are likely to be seen as a lower priority in either case.
Mr. Mark, then it just heightens both points. Remain would win in a landslide.
However, I think that's the only good chance hardcore Remainers have. A straight Leave/Remain vote would probably lead to an increase Leave lead, I think. And rejoining is a wholly different kettle of fish to remaining.
Mr. Mark, but if the choice were May-Leave or Remain, rather than Actually Leave that would be eminently winnable for Remain.
You're right it'd cause a justified spike in resentment of the political class, but in purely mechanical terms, the pro-EU side would have a strong chance of winning the referendum, albeit by stoking up public disenchantment with politics.
And if the anti-EU side boycott the second referendum?
They'd have no reason to complain at the result. The majority would say tough. You had your chance.
The thing is though, in politics, there's always another chance as long as there's enough depth and/or breadth of support - and in this case there'd be both.
While the majority might say 'tough', that wouldn't stop the minority organising to overturn their perceived grievance. Would that matter practically? Impossible to say. it'd depend on how UKIP 2.0 turned out, who led it, what defections they gained and so on.
@BarryGardiner 21h21 hours ago More Barry Gardiner Retweeted Ben Bradshaw Ben, you should ask yourself why the only people campaigning for a second referendum are the ones who lost the first. Precious few Leave Voters seem to be clamouring for the right to change their mind! Labour must try to heal the divide not make it deeper.
On the (excellent) video in the header: why don't more countries take this approach and penalise the enablers/employers of economic migrants? What is the political obstacle in doing so?
I get that there is an economic argument for tolerating a measure of cheap labour, but to make immigration such a central part of a political platform - as the Tories and Trump have done - and ignore measures such as this to tackle it seems bizarre.
The Tories haven’t ignored it. They have to ome extent targeted employers of illegal immigrants and others who enable it. And look at the immense amount of grief they have received. Those charged with some duties eg doctors have insisted that this should be for the Border Force and refuse to accept that demand for free health care may be some small part of the issue and that therefore no steps should be done to make it less accessible. Or look at the wailing by @Roger over his friend who employed an illegal and complained about the consequences.
But it is very hard to enact any sensible measures when a large part of the opposition don’t think that there should be any controls on immigration, whether legal or illegal.
I suspect that the reason these measures work in Switzerland and Norway is because there is much more unity amongst the populace about them.
Why do you expert doctors to be experts on the UK visa and immigration system? Is it really a good use of their (very limited) time to have to learn the difference in entitlements between, say a marriage visitor visa (no NHS entitlement) vs Tier 2 student (entitled)? Even if you have comprehensive knowledge of the system, the rules are constantly changing.
Similarly, do you expect Landlords to become experts in spotting forged passports and residence permits?
They don't have to be experts. They have to hold the records they are told to have. They have to have sight of the original, take a copy and sign and date it. If it turns out to be a forgery that is not their problem unless it was patently obvious.
The problem in my experience comes with casual employment relating to pubs and carry out shops with deliveries. In these establishments the responsibility for ensuring this is done lies on the manager but he or she is often almost as casual and fly by night as the employee. If they don't bother then the owner/employer takes a real hit.
Politics today is a curious mixture of total panic and total stasis.
It does however kill stone dead the idea that presenting the membership with Hunt v Gove would be a wizard wheeze for MPs to engineer.
They would lose their seats.
Quietly good news for Javid.
Until you see someone in post, it's impossible to say. Certainly, informed observers should be able to take a decent stab at whether someone's 'up to it' (and MPs ought to count as decent observers, alongside commentators), but that won't necessarily go for the public too. That said, early perceptions do count and can be hard to shift - though as Corbyn proved in 2017, these aren't set in stone either.
FWIW, I think the idea that May is the best option is only true in the short term and that the figures are measuring recognition and familiarity as much as potential ability.
This might be an unpopular view (well, I know it is) but I have little sympathy for the principle that the costs of social care should be born by the working taxpayer, rather than those with very substantial assets who simply want to protect their kids inheritance. Most of my council tax goes on social care as it is, which is irrelevant to me and I view as an irrelevant waste, whilst other services I do use are stripped to the bone.
People should take responsibility to look after themselves as best as possible first by using their own assets, with help from their own families.
Only in exceptional circumstances should there be a call on the State, which effectively means the working taxpayer.
So long as there are protections in place to stop people passing on their wealth to their children before they need social care, I'm fine with it. Ultimately I consider my parents to be my responsibility, but I do worry that others just don't think like that and are more than happy to game the system to get others to pay.
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.
Never forget that Silver flatly thought Trump had no chance of winning the Republican nomination. Which was highly profitable for me and many others on here.
Mr. Mark, but if the choice were May-Leave or Remain, rather than Actually Leave that would be eminently winnable for Remain.
You're right it'd cause a justified spike in resentment of the political class, but in purely mechanical terms, the pro-EU side would have a strong chance of winning the referendum, albeit by stoking up public disenchantment with politics.
Do you know any Leavers who would vote Remain in such a referendum? I know one possible, and dozens of others who wouldn’t even consider it.
Off topic - any thoughts on how long I should go for my next gas/electricity price fix. I’m being offered a one year deal which offers the most savings but wonder whether I should go for a longer-term fix?
Just got off the phone with our accounting software provider about "making tax digital"... something the Gov't seems to have been remarkably quiet on.
Never mind our individual difficulties (Group structure, supplies of goods from EU registered suppliers going direct from say France to Germany frequently) How on earth this is going to be phased in given the as yet unknown (And supposedly transitioning) trading and VAT relationship with the EU post Brexit I have absolubtely no idea. It's nonsense on stilts dreamt up by a bod in whitehall to tackle VAT fraud (Which it probably won't).
On the (excellent) video in the header: why don't more countries take this approach and penalise the enablers/employers of economic migrants? What is the political obstacle in doing so?
I get that there is an economic argument for tolerating a measure of cheap labour, but to make immigration such a central part of a political platform - as the Tories and Trump have done - and ignore measures such as this to tackle it seems bizarre.
The Tories haven’t ignored it. They have to ome extent targeted employers of illegal immigrants and others who enable it. And look at the immense amount of grief they have received. Those charged with some duties eg doctors have insisted that this should be for the Border Force and refuse to accept that demand for free health care may be some small part of the issue and that therefore no steps should be done to make it less accessible. Or look at the wailing by @Roger over his friend who employed an illegal and complained about the consequences.
But it is very hard to enact any sensible measures when a large part of the opposition don’t think that there should be any controls on immigration, whether legal or illegal.
I suspect that the reason these measures work in Switzerland and Norway is because there is much more unity amongst the populace about them.
Why do you expert doctors to be experts on the UK visa and immigration system? Is it really a good use of their (very limited) time to have to learn the difference in entitlements between, say a marriage visitor visa (no NHS entitlement) vs Tier 2 student (entitled)? Even if you have comprehensive knowledge of the system, the rules are constantly changing.
Similarly, do you expect Landlords to become experts in spotting forged passports and residence permits?
I see it in much the same light as my having to check the identities of new clients.
Are your clients in danger of dying whilst you spend time scrutinising their passport?
Off topic - any thoughts on how long I should go for my next gas/electricity price fix. I’m being offered a one year deal which offers the most savings but wonder whether I should go for a longer-term fix?
Thanks in advance.
Spooky, I was pondering that decision last night. I was thinking because of Brexit it might be worth fixing for longer than a year, but I don't know whether the premium on fixing for longer is worth it.
Just got off the phone with our accounting software provider about "making tax digital"... something the Gov't seems to have been remarkably quiet on.
Never mind our individual difficulties (Group structure, supplies of goods from EU registered suppliers going direct from say France to Germany frequently) How on earth this is going to be phased in given the as yet unknown (And supposedly transitioning) trading and VAT relationship with the EU post Brexit I have absolubtely no idea. It's nonsense on stilts dreamt up by a bod in whitehall to tackle VAT fraud (Which it probably won't).
I don't believe it will happen. Theoretically it's supposed to go live in 10 months time, but for that to be achievable most companies would have to be running dummy data entry already, in preparation. The government seems to have largely forgotten about it, and introducing it simultaneously with Brexit is, err, brave. So I think the overwhelming likelihood is that they'll suddenly realise it's impossible, and postpone it, probably for a long time.
I noted one or two of the usual suspects waxing lyrical about yesterday's borrowing figures and no doubt we will hear the usual siren calls for a Brexit tax cut given the Chancellor will have "wiggle room".
Instead of that waste of time and effort, Hammond should be sending a shedload of cash to hard pressed local authorities trying to resolve adult social care demand, the demands for extra school spaces and any of the myriad other issues which will no doubt fall out of Brexit and especially if we crash out without a deal.
It is appalling that a well-run council like East Sussex has to pare back community services and activities simply because of the exponential rise in demand for adult social care and a continuing reduction in Government grant.
I pretty much agree with that and said so yesterday as, in fairness, did other Tories such as @SeanF. There is enormous upward pressure on public spending at the moment in a whole range of areas but Social Care is near the top of the pile. I see no room for tax cuts, arguably the reverse in fact. We need a new income flow for social care and the capital of those receiving it is the obvious source.
'I don't think the current tax policies of the Scottish government are likely to achieve that, quite the reverse. The alternative is to cut Scottish public spending to nearer the UK average.'
So in summary, the UK government should be more like the Scottish government and the Scottish government should be more like the UK government? #confused
The Scottish public sector spent £1576 more per person than the UK average, up from £1448 the previous year. If we look at the Independence scenario we either bridge that gap by additional taxes or we cut spending. Neither look attractive, what we would want to do is improve our tax base so we can afford the extra without making ourselves uncompetitive as a place to do business.
The road to independence (not a road I wish to travel of course) is not by marches such as we saw in Dundee this weekend but in building a tax base that can sustain the public services we want and even want to improve. All Scottish government policies should be focussed on that objective but they are more interested in sweeties to buy votes.
Sweeties like improved OAP care... Which you support?
Mr. Mark, but if the choice were May-Leave or Remain, rather than Actually Leave that would be eminently winnable for Remain.
You're right it'd cause a justified spike in resentment of the political class, but in purely mechanical terms, the pro-EU side would have a strong chance of winning the referendum, albeit by stoking up public disenchantment with politics.
Do you know any Leavers who would vote Remain in such a referendum? I know one possible, and dozens of others who wouldn’t even consider it.
Mr. Mark, but if the choice were May-Leave or Remain, rather than Actually Leave that would be eminently winnable for Remain.
You're right it'd cause a justified spike in resentment of the political class, but in purely mechanical terms, the pro-EU side would have a strong chance of winning the referendum, albeit by stoking up public disenchantment with politics.
Do you know any Leavers who would vote Remain in such a referendum? I know one possible, and dozens of others who wouldn’t even consider it.
But would they bother to turn out and vote again, given that the reality of Brexit is turning out to be very different from what was promised?
Comments
There's a downside to any kind of prohibition-type policy that you dissuade people from interacting with anyone in authority. This is the point behind the "sanctuary cities" stuff: If an illegal immigrant sees you getting mugged, you don't want them to be afraid to call the police in case they get deported. The same is true if they're a victim of crime or if they get sick.
You have a little bit of the same thing with employers in that if you make employers who work in the legal economy unwilling to hire people, you increase the supply of labour in the illegal economy. You also create more unemployment among illegal immigrants (to the extent that this isn't fully cancelled out by the deterrent in being there) which brings its own problems.
However, I think the balance is much more obvious for things like heathcare and law enforcement than employment. Employment will have a big deterrent effect and probably not a very big social problem effect, whereas immigration enforcement via medicine, social services or normal policing will create a lot of social problems without having much of a deterrent effect.
And as for Morris Dancer, I always thought something was up with him.
Recant thy villainous slurs, varlet!
Personally I now think it's odds-on.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/05/28/will-the-fervor-for-impeachment-start-a-democratic-civil-war
Scotland has a 5.5% shortfall of revenues on current expenditure, that is excluding all capital expenditure. By comparison the UK had a tiny surplus last year on this basis. Including capital expenditure it was 7.9% of GDP compared to a UK figure of 1.9%. The actual deficit was £13.4bn
These figures are almost identical to they previous year (£13.3bn) which is troubling because there was a much better contribution from North Sea Oil. It suggests to me that the underlying picture continues to deteriorate. In fairness, since April, the oil price has risen so we may see a similar boost from the North Sea in the current year but this is short term.
The challenge for Scotland, as I have said before, is to at least close the gap with rUK and ideally go beyond that into surplus. To achieve that we need to have a vibrant private sector economy and encourage entrepreneurs to set up businesses here. I don't think the current tax policies of the Scottish government are likely to achieve that, quite the reverse. The alternative is to cut Scottish public spending to nearer the UK average. I am pretty sure that the Scottish Government does not want to do that either. Unless Scotland does one or the other it is simply not ready for independence. But the Scottish Government doesn't want to hear that either.
Clinton in the end kinda got quite a lot of sympathy that he was hounded over really some in the grand scheme of things pretty irrelevant (other than to hiliary). Obviously we know there were loads more but my point was they didn’t get him with his hand in the till or something more serious.
Now this case has been built as mega mega serious, so far everybody seems to be getting done for tax fiddling etc, so what will the public make if rather than proving Russian collusion they prove a payoff to porn star we already know about?
It should be a low single-figure shot at the moment.
More interesting news from the world of local Government finance this morning:
https://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2018/08/london-councils-will-be-fair-funding-losers-says-ifs?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_term=
I noted one or two of the usual suspects waxing lyrical about yesterday's borrowing figures and no doubt we will hear the usual siren calls for a Brexit tax cut given the Chancellor will have "wiggle room".
Instead of that waste of time and effort, Hammond should be sending a shedload of cash to hard pressed local authorities trying to resolve adult social care demand, the demands for extra school spaces and any of the myriad other issues which will no doubt fall out of Brexit and especially if we crash out without a deal.
It is appalling that a well-run council like East Sussex has to pare back community services and activities simply because of the exponential rise in demand for adult social care and a continuing reduction in Government grant.
https://twitter.com/whatukthinks/status/1032172556659380224
So in summary, the UK government should be more like the Scottish government and the Scottish government should be more like the UK government?
#confused
The road to independence (not a road I wish to travel of course) is not by marches such as we saw in Dundee this weekend but in building a tax base that can sustain the public services we want and even want to improve. All Scottish government policies should be focussed on that objective but they are more interested in sweeties to buy votes.
How do Switzerland and Norway deal with the points raised by @DavidL ie people working in the black economy? Do they impose the same requirements on letting agents, doctors etc?
Interesting - and ironic - to note that a number of people have come up with stories of unfeeling, inflexible and incompetent bureaucrats and yet, judging by their posts, they tend to be the keenest on increasing state power and involvement in all areas of life. If the state cannot do what it is now doing well that is not the best argument for giving it even more powers or areas of competence, is it?
@NickPalmer: you might want to see if your relative could give someone competent a power of attorney to help him through his current predicament.
OTOH, East Sussex faces a similar budget crisis not if its making and it seems absurd well-run authorities are facing the same hard decisions but is it not a consequence of the continuation of the absurdity of two-tier local Government? Dorset is disappearing next year as is Northants but how long can the likes of Surrey, East and West Sussex and others resist the pull towards unitary status?
I am exceedingly frustrated by bureaucracy that seems to serve no purpose whatsoever. And I absolutely hate the 'jobs worth' mentality that produces nothing productive.
Much of this government's rather modest austerity program (which has essentially involved public spending increasing but at a slower rate than hitherto and falling as a share of GDP) has fallen on local government. The pips are undoubtedly squeaking and more expenditure is clearly needed (unless various statutory duties are removed). Like you I think that money spent on Social Care may well do at least as much for the NHS as giving the money to the NHS itself by addressing bed blocking and providing a more appropriate, cheaper level of care for our frail and elderly. I remain to be convinced this can be done within current income flows.
Pleasingly it seems a week after my e-mail there was a vote to push the matter on:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-44819546
I get that there is an economic argument for tolerating a measure of cheap labour, but to make immigration such a central part of a political platform - as the Tories and Trump have done - and ignore measures such as this to tackle it seems bizarre.
Thank goodness there isn't an upcoming event that by afaik every objective study will affect the tax base in the short to medium term.
There's a MASSIVE psychological barrier to that. It's like putting a question in a poll:
"Were you wrong?"
With the implicit:
"I mean, on one of the biggest political decisions of your lifetime and certainly the biggest one that's ever been given to the people to decide; one with huge and on-running repercussions for the economy and national identity, sovereignty and the make-up of government itself... will you now tell us you were wrong?"
I mean, on either side, anyone who does change their mind on it is to be applauded - whether Remain to Leave, or Leave to Remain, but I do think the chances of any major opinion swing on this are slim.
It is not obvious to me why the authority which collects bins, issues parking permits and runs parks is the right body to provide care for the elderly or look after children in need. Maybe social care should be linked to the NHS - there are more obvious synergies there and it might well lead to more joined up thinking about the care of the elderly, which is almost always a mix of social and health care.
But it is very hard to enact any sensible measures when a large part of the opposition don’t think that there should be any controls on immigration, whether legal or illegal.
I suspect that the reason these measures work in Switzerland and Norway is because there is much more unity amongst the populace about them.
Capital spending has been squeezed over the last decade, and from the point of view of the CoE such spending has the advantage of economic stimulus without too much recurrent costs.
I've not found most "bureaucrats" to be unfeeling at all - they usually help within the limits of their powers and often are quite upset that they can't do more. I'm in favour of giving them more power to act helpfully and more flexibility. Privatising them to someone who not only has all kinds of rules but also needs to meet profit targets seems to me a REALLY bad idea - anything to do with migration, social care, housing etc. really needs to be done by public servants.
The Swiss in my experience don't outsource monitoring to rental agents, doctors, etc. - the police are quite tough in enforcing the rules, but they don't expect anyone else to do their work for them. I never had to prove right of residence to anyone except the cops.
As a supporter of the Coalition, I look back on that with profound disappointment and as you say other areas of local Government activity suffer. It's a small thing but verges don't get cut so residents complain and officer time is spent dealing with those complaints when keeping the verges clear and neat would have been a cheaper option.
That's the problem - most people still expect "the Council" to do anything and everything
but as soon as you tell them what that costs they bring out the pitchforks. Local Councils "could" live without Government grants but Council Tax would have to double or even triple in some areas to meet the shortfall.
Unfortunately, 30-40 years of anti-tax media propaganda has meant the merest hint of raising taxes is met with incredulity but I don't see any viable options until the economic culture of our society changes.
Nor is it a reversible process, so you can't go back and "correct" it.
Interesting, albeit partisan, take on the psychology from Brendan O'Neill here
Assuming that the government has about £10bn more to play with than it expected, I'd spend it on increasing local government funding, increasing funding on the criminal justice system, and increasing defence expenditure, in that order of priority.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/22/tories-leadership-may-johnson-rees-mogg-icm-poll
Politics today is a curious mixture of total panic and total stasis.
"Wrong and yet we should do it anyway, because that is how democracy works" vs "Wrong and I'm going to keep whining about it and do everything I can to reverse it"
I suspect the former camp will be why we move on from the matter, and accept Brexit. I know exactly two people who fall into the latter camp; everyone else amongst my acquaintances is a democrat.
Anyway I hope your relative gets the help he needs. A power of attorney may be worth looking into because people like your relative, and I have had some experience of this with friends, often need a sensible friend to help them through who is not phased by bureaucracy or difficult clients.
"Care", as you say, covers a multitude of sins. For many, indeed most, care isn't about moving into as residential or nursing home but having some help round the house with cleaning, washing all the way through the provision of meals to help getting dressed and washed and so on.
That is the area where the crunch exists - should we have a single National Home Care Organisation? Perhaps, perhaps not. One of the advantages of local provision is continuity - when my late father had domiciliary care he always liked it when the same woman turned up as he got to know her.
The other aspect of this is the industry of assessment - local councils have large numbers of finance staff whose sole responsibility is or are assessments for care because that's how we want to do it (a means test). We could simply have free care for all paid for by increased general taxation - that would be credible and less complex for the older person.
Perhaps then those doing the care will be properly financially rewarded but, more important, their workloads would be cut because a huge part of the care provided is the company and the conversation. If each carer could have 60 minutes with each client, the quality of care and the quality of lives would be significantly enhanced.
People who are not actively engaged have come to the conclusion they're all shits and have tuned out.
Leavers could, legitimately, say: we're better off out. But the deal May has negotiated is so ****ing atrocious we get the disadvantages of membership without the benefits of leaving. We'd be better off in compared to leaving on such terms.
I do think Remain could win such a referendum. They could try to pose it as a question of confidence in May's dithering capitulation of a negotiation.
In a Leave/Remain straight up vote, Leave, I think, would win handily.
People should take responsibility to look after themselves as best as possible first by using their own assets, with help from their own families.
Only in exceptional circumstances should there be a call on the State, which effectively means the working taxpayer.
Reorganising Notts makes sense, and could lead to a long-needed expansion of the city boundary, which is drawn ludicrously tightly.
https://nottstv.com/city-could-expand-borders-to-include-west-bridgford-beeston-gedling-and-arnold/
Jon Collins is spot on.
https://nottstv.com/city-could-expand-borders-to-include-west-bridgford-beeston-gedling-and-arnold/
The chief Brexit negotiator could be sidelined as talks go to the wire.
Michel Barnier has had an incredible run as the EU’s Brexit negotiator. But starting now, his luck and limelight are running out.
We may be about to hit peak Barnier.
https://www.politico.eu/article/michel-barnier-brexit-negotiator-weve-reached-peak/
And it would have the whole of The Establishment in its sights.
Similarly, do you expect Landlords to become experts in spotting forged passports and residence permits?
My leadership campaign starts here.
You're right it'd cause a justified spike in resentment of the political class, but in purely mechanical terms, the pro-EU side would have a strong chance of winning the referendum, albeit by stoking up public disenchantment with politics.
Having made so much of protecting and increasing peoples’ inheritances, the Tories were rather hoist by their own petard when they were seen as threatening it. But an inheritance should come second to not expecting others, often poorer than you, to pay for your care when you need it.
They would lose their seats.
Quietly good news for Javid.
That isn’t to say that I think the present system is, in practice, within a light-year or two of being ideal. I my working life I was seconded ‘as necessary’ to the predecessor of the CQC and while in my limited experience LA Homes were, in my time visiting them not the ‘best' they were not by any manner of means the worst, either!
The planned takeover of the District Councils which are very much smaller will save a small amount overall but is not a long term solution to the social care issue.
Firstly there is a need to change people's expectation that when they get old the council should pay their housing, food and utility bills. The NHS is there to deal with bad health not your daily upkeep.
Keeping more people in their own homes when they get old will help with changing people's mindset and also means they remain within a familiar environment rather than going into a home or hospital. It also means people should understand they still neeed to pay for their own accommodation, food, and utility bills.
It will mean we (local councils) need to get better at supporting people so they stay in their own home when they get older.
The Conservatives have also gone strong on "inheritance" - you're correct of course it's not a sacred right and I was appalled by the 2017 Conservative manifesto proposal to substantially raise the value of "untouchable" assets from £23,500 where it currently sits.
Yet when I argued that was wrong and simply shifted the financial burden onto the rest of us the pro-May loyalists howled in anger.
Most people simply don't have the funding or the assets to support prolonged periods of even basic residential care yet alone dementia or nursing care and what happens when the asset well runs dry?
I'm a working taxpayer too - I don't begrudge elderly people I don't know being well looked after in their latter years. Short of providing all care free funded out of general taxation, I'm pushed to see an alternative that works.
Also this poll was rather odd - it didn't ask respondents which potential leader they'd prefer themselves, it asked them whether X would improve the chances of the party. That's a curious Keynesian Beauty Contest sort of question, and hard to interpret.
So, whilst I agree that it is quietly good news for Javid, I wouldn't attach too much credence to it.
However, I think that's the only good chance hardcore Remainers have. A straight Leave/Remain vote would probably lead to an increase Leave lead, I think. And rejoining is a wholly different kettle of fish to remaining.
Is this a wind up?
The fact that 12% of magistrates are ethnic minorities suggests they aren't statistically underrepresented at all.
While the majority might say 'tough', that wouldn't stop the minority organising to overturn their perceived grievance. Would that matter practically? Impossible to say. it'd depend on how UKIP 2.0 turned out, who led it, what defections they gained and so on.
Barry Gardiner
Verified account
@BarryGardiner
21h21 hours ago
More Barry Gardiner Retweeted Ben Bradshaw
Ben, you should ask yourself why the only people campaigning for a second referendum are the ones who lost the first.
Precious few Leave Voters seem to be clamouring for the right to change their mind!
Labour must try to heal the divide not make it deeper.
The problem in my experience comes with casual employment relating to pubs and carry out shops with deliveries. In these establishments the responsibility for ensuring this is done lies on the manager but he or she is often almost as casual and fly by night as the employee. If they don't bother then the owner/employer takes a real hit.
Westminster voting intention:
CON: 40% (+1)
LAB: 40% (-)
LDEM: 8% (-)
UKIP: 6% (-)
GRN: 2% (-1)
via @ICMResearch, 17 - 19 Aug
FWIW, I think the idea that May is the best option is only true in the short term and that the figures are measuring recognition and familiarity as much as potential ability.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1032218777751044096?s=19
- "We have no options but we must do something: panic!"
- "Whatever we do, it's all going to get worse: do nothing, then!"
Thanks in advance.
Never mind our individual difficulties (Group structure, supplies of goods from EU registered suppliers going direct from say France to Germany frequently) How on earth this is going to be phased in given the as yet unknown (And supposedly transitioning) trading and VAT relationship with the EU post Brexit I have absolubtely no idea. It's nonsense on stilts dreamt up by a bod in whitehall to tackle VAT fraud (Which it probably won't).