Tonight we are seeing a little of the possible vulnerability of Boris' Tory Party. There are certain problems not soluble by three word slogans, nor by expelling everyone who takes a different view, nor by simply declaring the issue solved. Some take nuance, balance, long-term planning and compromise. The electorate needs to be prepared for that with blunt explanation of why this must be, not simply telling them what they want to hear.
Rip up the HRA Shoot the Immigrants Make Space
I have a better plan. As no country seems willing to be our offshore centre, we need to seize control of some islands, thousands of miles from these shores. The asylum seekers could be shipped there by boat, perhaps from Bristol. In order to keep them busy while incarcerated we could get them to grow and harvest sugar and other commodities, which could be shipped here on the return voyage.
We could name this the the Royal African Company, and erect statues of those who came up with the scheme.
It's all going horribly wrong for Boris and rapidly.
I love how the tory cheerleaders on here are desperately trying to cling on to their last vestiges of evidence, usually citing opinion polls taken during the football euphoria.
Johnson's approval ratings are sliding because with every passing day more people come to realise that he's an incompetent idiot.
We are in an utter mess right now in almost every direction you look.
The images of 450 migrants simply beaching in Kent, in one single day, and then scattering are absolutely appalling for the Tories
TAKE BACK CONTROL?!
If they don't get a grip on this the government is fucked
Yep.
The Alf Garnett voters who basically don't like brown and black people arriving on our shores and who voted for Boris to stop them will be seething under their Costa del Sol parasols.
Even if you could sort out social care in terms of more money who exactly is going to be doing the caring . Unless you increase foreign workers which this cesspit government won’t do where are these carers going to come from .
As pay rises more people will be willing to do it. Before you parrot the bullcrap about english people won't do it remember 83% of people doing it are already english. What your lot always means is that english people won't do it for minimum wage
The biggest competitor for care homes are supermarkets which offer more predictable hours, less physically demanding work and the same pay
The population of Florida would appear to be slightly less than half that of England. If they've really got over 27k in hospital then that would be considerably worse than the peak of the January wave here. Whether some of this is a function of the Americans having more hospital capacity and a greater tendency to admit moderate cases than the distressed NHS I don't know, but it certainly looks bad over there at the moment.
The images of 450 migrants simply beaching in Kent, in one single day, and then scattering are absolutely appalling for the Tories
TAKE BACK CONTROL?!
If they don't get a grip on this the government is fucked
Labour needs to make the most of this and push to welcome these people to the UK and help them. Their moral cowardice in not doing so shames left wing politics
Sorry, but are you fecking radge?
Wave goodbye to the Red Wall forever.
Sorry but SKS and his team need to do what is right and if that means losing the red wall to gain other seats so be it.
Why is it right to allow a bunch of young, fit blokes who have blagged their way across Europe to come and live here?
Those in genuine need are languishing in camps near to the conflict zones.
They are men, women and children. Many are unaccompanied children. It is right because they are desperate people,fleeing torture, wars, bigotry, prejudice and persecution. Look where they come from. Places like Somalia, Iran, Eritrea, Syria, S Sudan. They don’t tend to come from stable nations. God bless them all.
They're more likely to need Allah's blessing from that set of countries.
Why is that an issue worthy of comment ?
Because we live in a free society and any subject that he seems worthy of comment is so?
Even if you could sort out social care in terms of more money who exactly is going to be doing the caring . Unless you increase foreign workers which this cesspit government won’t do where are these carers going to come from .
As pay rises more people will be willing to do it. Before you parrot the bullcrap about english people won't do it remember 83% of people doing it are already english. What your lot always means is that english people won't do it for minimum wage
The biggest competitor for care homes are supermarkets which offer more predictable hours, less physically demanding work and the same pay
The problem for care homes is that they are caught between buyers of their services who are starved of cash (local councils) and their employees (who can earn the same or more in nicer conditions at the supermarket).
This isn't a problem of Brexit, but of an ageing population and an unwillingness to discuss how to pay for care of the elderly (see May, T).
The population of Florida would appear to be slightly less than half that of England. If they've really got over 27k in hospital then that would be considerably worse than the peak of the January wave here. Whether some of this is a function of the Americans having more hospital capacity and a greater tendency to admit moderate cases than the distressed NHS I don't know, but it certainly looks bad over there at the moment.
I don't think that hospitalizations number is correct, although it's hard to know because the State announced last month that it would be longer release hospitalization statistics.
Even if you could sort out social care in terms of more money who exactly is going to be doing the caring . Unless you increase foreign workers which this cesspit government won’t do where are these carers going to come from .
As pay rises more people will be willing to do it. Before you parrot the bullcrap about english people won't do it remember 83% of people doing it are already english. What your lot always means is that english people won't do it for minimum wage
The biggest competitor for care homes are supermarkets which offer more predictable hours, less physically demanding work and the same pay
Besides which, the employees don't form attachments to their favourite boxes of cereal and then have to watch, powerless, whilst most of them die all at once of a hideous plague.
So we come back to the same old problem: decent care demands more investment, the elderly will benefit from the investment but, owing to the composition of the electorate, if that's going to happen then the young will be expected to cover the entire cost.
Even if you could sort out social care in terms of more money who exactly is going to be doing the caring . Unless you increase foreign workers which this cesspit government won’t do where are these carers going to come from .
As pay rises more people will be willing to do it. Before you parrot the bullcrap about english people won't do it remember 83% of people doing it are already english. What your lot always means is that english people won't do it for minimum wage
The biggest competitor for care homes are supermarkets which offer more predictable hours, less physically demanding work and the same pay
Besides which, the employees don't form attachments to their favourite boxes of cereal and then have to watch, powerless, whilst most of them die all at once of a hideous plague.
So we come back to the same old problem: decent care demands more investment, the elderly will benefit from the investment but, owing to the composition of the electorate, if that's going to happen then the young will be expected to cover the entire cost.
And which is why Italy and Japan are fucked, and why we need to be very careful not to follow them down the rabbit hole.
Chairman of M&S explaining that Brexit means lorries to the EU (or NI) now carry 700 pages of forms for inspection and delays of 24-48 hours at borders mean some perishable goods are being destroyed. The new paperwork is employing a team of 13 people.
Chairman of M&S explaining that Brexit means lorries to the EU (or NI) now carry 700 pages of forms for inspection and delays of 24-48 hours at borders mean some perishable goods are being destroyed. The new paperwork is employing a team of 13 people.
Heathrow passengers told to 'lie' about quarantine to avoid immigration queues
… Telegraph Travel correspondent John Arlidge, who was advised by an immigration officer that travellers should 'lie' on their PLF, stating that they will self-isolate, even though the legal requirement to do so has now ended.
'There is currently no button on the UK's Passenger Locator Form (PFL) to declare that you are exempt from self-isolation because you are fully double vaccinated and coming from an amber country,' writes Arlidge.
'If you tell the truth on the locator form and say you are exempt and tick the ‘Government / Assembly Approved’ reason – which is the only option that makes any sense – you cannot use the E-gates.'
Even if you could sort out social care in terms of more money who exactly is going to be doing the caring . Unless you increase foreign workers which this cesspit government won’t do where are these carers going to come from .
As pay rises more people will be willing to do it. Before you parrot the bullcrap about english people won't do it remember 83% of people doing it are already english. What your lot always means is that english people won't do it for minimum wage
The biggest competitor for care homes are supermarkets which offer more predictable hours, less physically demanding work and the same pay
Besides which, the employees don't form attachments to their favourite boxes of cereal and then have to watch, powerless, whilst most of them die all at once of a hideous plague.
So we come back to the same old problem: decent care demands more investment, the elderly will benefit from the investment but, owing to the composition of the electorate, if that's going to happen then the young will be expected to cover the entire cost.
And which is why Italy and Japan are fucked, and why we need to be very careful not to follow them down the rabbit hole.
As far as I can see, deal with the problem one of three ways:
1. Import a continuous flow of young people from elsewhere (but that just kicks the can down the road - they will all get old eventually - whilst exacerbating the tremendous housing problem) 2. Alter patterns of retirement and encourage/persuade/force people to work until they are much older (through a combination of measures such as phasing in the payment of the state pension and encouraging part-time working for older employees) 3. Borrow more, tax more, borrow more, tax more, until the economy collapses (hopefully on someone else's watch)
No prizes for guessing which way the Government is likely to jump.
Chairman of M&S explaining that Brexit means lorries to the EU (or NI) now carry 700 pages of forms for inspection and delays of 24-48 hours at borders mean some perishable goods are being destroyed. The new paperwork is employing a team of 13 people.
Chairman of M&S?
What does he know...
One of our PB supermarket trade and shipping experts will be along in a moment to explain why he is wrong.
BREAK - First athlete to withdraw from the Games after testing positive in Japan…
Chilean Taekwondo athlete Fernanda Aguirre tested positive on arrival in Tokyo and will have to quarantine for at least 10 days, meaning she will miss her competition. https://twitter.com/coch_cl/status/1417320070695596041
Right, off to bed now. Hopefully tonight's little outbreak of zealous xenophobia will have calmed down a little by tomorrow.
Night all!
Zealous xenophobia? This is why it's impossible to have a debate on this issue, you immediately get accused of racism.
A debate?!
This is not a debate, it's a few people trying to pretend that any of a number of totally unworkable 'solutions' could be deployed to solve a very complex problem.
"Send them to St.Helena" or "sift them via Hunger Games" does not strike me as 'debate'.
Come on then Ben give us a solution that isnt "let them all in"
Well, partly I think it's a problem more in the perception than reality. I'd largely continue with the current approach, which is what HMG will do because there are far bigger problems to address than this one. 100,000 migrants a year is sustainable imo.
But if action must be seen to be done... Off the top of my head: maybe a route where people can work for full citizenship over a number (10+) of years, through taking employment, paying taxes, good conduct, etc.
You do know these refugee groups have the lowest levels of employment? What if after 2 years they still don't have a job or 4 years or 7 years etc?
Sigh. You know how hard it is for a refugee to get a job because of the restrictions currently placed on them right? I'm saying, let them work, make them work if they want to stay.
I worked with radiologists, computer science professors and even someone off the Soviet space programme. All accepted as refugees. All directed by DWP to cleaning and care work.
That is hardly an argument against reducing restrictions on their ability to work.
BREAK - First athlete to withdraw from the Games after testing positive in Japan…
Chilean Taekwondo athlete Fernanda Aguirre tested positive on arrival in Tokyo and will have to quarantine for at least 10 days, meaning she will miss her competition. https://twitter.com/coch_cl/status/1417320070695596041
One imagines that there's going to be an awful lot more of that. Hopefully I'm wrong, but the latest iteration of the rotten virus does seem to be near-impossible to contain.
The images of 450 migrants simply beaching in Kent, in one single day, and then scattering are absolutely appalling for the Tories
TAKE BACK CONTROL?!
If they don't get a grip on this the government is fucked
The UK is far to weak. We need to do what the European countries are doing. Fuck middle class sensibilities, push them back out to sea like French and Greeks and house the ones that do make it in Algeria until they are processed. No right to enter the UK until asylum is granted. The UK needs to become a fortress island.
Fortunately our courts wouldn’t allow it and someone like the good law project would soon stop it.
Change the law, legislate, do whatever it takes. If it means burning the HRA then so be it. Enough is enough.
I don't like to be the bringer of bad news but that's ultimately where we'll end up if a solution is not found.
People won't accept legal niceities as an excuse for doing nothing - they'll vote for those who'll drive a cart and horses through them.
On the other hand, I don't think people will vote for asylum-seekers being left to drown off the English coast.
It's a very difficult issue, there are no easy solutions.
The easiest solution is to have their claims processed somewhere outside the UK. So they cross the Sahara, the Med, continental Europe, the Channel and then get put on a plane to Cape Verde.
Why would Cape Verde agree to take them?
Herein lies the issue.
Cape Verde, a poor country, would take them because we'd pay them, handsomely
That is the concept underlying the Rwanda idea, I believe
Even if they did. What happens if the good folk of Cape Verde decide they no longer have patience with thousands upon thousands being dumped on them, and decide they want to return them whence they came? Here.
Interesting how they would be something "dumped" on the people of Cape Verde but they are "adding to our economy" when they come here.
It is. Though if you think about the differences in economies, state capacity, and demographics, it’s not super hard to see why that might be the case.
The images of 450 migrants simply beaching in Kent, in one single day, and then scattering are absolutely appalling for the Tories
TAKE BACK CONTROL?!
If they don't get a grip on this the government is fucked
Labour needs to make the most of this and push to welcome these people to the UK and help them. Their moral cowardice in not doing so shames left wing politics
Sorry, but are you fecking radge?
Wave goodbye to the Red Wall forever.
Sorry but SKS and his team need to do what is right and if that means losing the red wall to gain other seats so be it.
Why is it right to allow a bunch of young, fit blokes who have blagged their way across Europe to come and live here?
Those in genuine need are languishing in camps near to the conflict zones.
They are men, women and children. Many are unaccompanied children. It is right because they are desperate people,fleeing torture, wars, bigotry, prejudice and persecution. Look where they come from. Places like Somalia, Iran, Eritrea, Syria, S Sudan. They don’t tend to come from stable nations. God bless them all.
They're more likely to need Allah's blessing from that set of countries.
Why is that an issue worthy of comment ?
Because we live in a free society and any subject that he seems worthy of comment is so?
So what.
I am asking him what that comment brings to the debate. This is a discussion forum. It is not unreasonable to ask what is behind that point or what it adds to,the debate.
Even if you could sort out social care in terms of more money who exactly is going to be doing the caring . Unless you increase foreign workers which this cesspit government won’t do where are these carers going to come from .
As pay rises more people will be willing to do it. Before you parrot the bullcrap about english people won't do it remember 83% of people doing it are already english. What your lot always means is that english people won't do it for minimum wage
The biggest competitor for care homes are supermarkets which offer more predictable hours, less physically demanding work and the same pay
Besides which, the employees don't form attachments to their favourite boxes of cereal and then have to watch, powerless, whilst most of them die all at once of a hideous plague.
So we come back to the same old problem: decent care demands more investment, the elderly will benefit from the investment but, owing to the composition of the electorate, if that's going to happen then the young will be expected to cover the entire cost.
And which is why Italy and Japan are fucked, and why we need to be very careful not to follow them down the rabbit hole.
As far as I can see, deal with the problem one of three ways:
1. Import a continuous flow of young people from elsewhere (but that just kicks the can down the road - they will all get old eventually - whilst exacerbating the tremendous housing problem) 2. Alter patterns of retirement and encourage/persuade/force people to work until they are much older (through a combination of measures such as phasing in the payment of the state pension and encouraging part-time working for older employees) 3. Borrow more, tax more, borrow more, tax more, until the economy collapses (hopefully on someone else's watch)
No prizes for guessing which way the Government is likely to jump.
Imagine a situation where everyone had 2.1 kids, and life expectancy was static.
In that circumstance, the state is in a good state. The ratio of workers to retirees is stable.
Now imagine that the birth rate has dropped to 1. Now, every generation, there are half as many kids as parents. That's big trouble that is the pensions and healthcare of the retirees is paid by the workers. And that ratio is now looking uglier every generation. (And such a scenario encourages emigration too... Who wants to hang around and hand over all their paycheck to support oldies, further worsening the dependency ratio.)
Oh, but it gets worse. People are still living longer. So there are ever more retirees being supported by a smaller number of people of writing age.
Chairman of M&S explaining that Brexit means lorries to the EU (or NI) now carry 700 pages of forms for inspection and delays of 24-48 hours at borders mean some perishable goods are being destroyed. The new paperwork is employing a team of 13 people.
The images of 450 migrants simply beaching in Kent, in one single day, and then scattering are absolutely appalling for the Tories
TAKE BACK CONTROL?!
If they don't get a grip on this the government is fucked
Yep.
The Alf Garnett voters who basically don't like brown and black people arriving on our shores and who voted for Boris to stop them will be seething under their Costa del Sol parasols.
There was a lot of that on here last night when I was defending the rights of refugees to come here.
Even if you could sort out social care in terms of more money who exactly is going to be doing the caring . Unless you increase foreign workers which this cesspit government won’t do where are these carers going to come from .
As pay rises more people will be willing to do it. Before you parrot the bullcrap about english people won't do it remember 83% of people doing it are already english. What your lot always means is that english people won't do it for minimum wage
The biggest competitor for care homes are supermarkets which offer more predictable hours, less physically demanding work and the same pay
Besides which, the employees don't form attachments to their favourite boxes of cereal and then have to watch, powerless, whilst most of them die all at once of a hideous plague.
So we come back to the same old problem: decent care demands more investment, the elderly will benefit from the investment but, owing to the composition of the electorate, if that's going to happen then the young will be expected to cover the entire cost.
And which is why Italy and Japan are fucked, and why we need to be very careful not to follow them down the rabbit hole.
As far as I can see, deal with the problem one of three ways:
1. Import a continuous flow of young people from elsewhere (but that just kicks the can down the road - they will all get old eventually - whilst exacerbating the tremendous housing problem) 2. Alter patterns of retirement and encourage/persuade/force people to work until they are much older (through a combination of measures such as phasing in the payment of the state pension and encouraging part-time working for older employees) 3. Borrow more, tax more, borrow more, tax more, until the economy collapses (hopefully on someone else's watch)
No prizes for guessing which way the Government is likely to jump.
Imagine a situation where everyone had 2.1 kids, and life expectancy was static.
In that circumstance, the state is in a good state. The ratio of workers to retirees is stable.
Now imagine that the birth rate has dropped to 1. Now, every generation, there are half as many kids as parents. That's big trouble that is the pensions and healthcare of the retirees is paid by the workers. And that ratio is now looking uglier every generation. (And such a scenario encourages emigration too... Who wants to hang around and hand over all their paycheck to support oldies, further worsening the dependency ratio.)
Oh, but it gets worse. People are still living longer. So there are ever more retirees being supported by a smaller number of people of writing age.
This is why our productivity issues are so important. If the average output of a worker is increasing by 2% a year then it will double over their working lives meaning that the unfavourable movement in the ratio of employees to retired are offset. Unfortunately, that has not been the case for some time making us ever more dependent on changing the ratio by immigration.
Even if you could sort out social care in terms of more money who exactly is going to be doing the caring . Unless you increase foreign workers which this cesspit government won’t do where are these carers going to come from .
As pay rises more people will be willing to do it. Before you parrot the bullcrap about english people won't do it remember 83% of people doing it are already english. What your lot always means is that english people won't do it for minimum wage
The biggest competitor for care homes are supermarkets which offer more predictable hours, less physically demanding work and the same pay
Besides which, the employees don't form attachments to their favourite boxes of cereal and then have to watch, powerless, whilst most of them die all at once of a hideous plague.
So we come back to the same old problem: decent care demands more investment, the elderly will benefit from the investment but, owing to the composition of the electorate, if that's going to happen then the young will be expected to cover the entire cost.
And which is why Italy and Japan are fucked, and why we need to be very careful not to follow them down the rabbit hole.
As far as I can see, deal with the problem one of three ways:
1. Import a continuous flow of young people from elsewhere (but that just kicks the can down the road - they will all get old eventually - whilst exacerbating the tremendous housing problem) 2. Alter patterns of retirement and encourage/persuade/force people to work until they are much older (through a combination of measures such as phasing in the payment of the state pension and encouraging part-time working for older employees) 3. Borrow more, tax more, borrow more, tax more, until the economy collapses (hopefully on someone else's watch)
No prizes for guessing which way the Government is likely to jump.
Imagine a situation where everyone had 2.1 kids, and life expectancy was static.
In that circumstance, the state is in a good state. The ratio of workers to retirees is stable.
Now imagine that the birth rate has dropped to 1. Now, every generation, there are half as many kids as parents. That's big trouble that is the pensions and healthcare of the retirees is paid by the workers. And that ratio is now looking uglier every generation. (And such a scenario encourages emigration too... Who wants to hang around and hand over all their paycheck to support oldies, further worsening the dependency ratio.)
Oh, but it gets worse. People are still living longer. So there are ever more retirees being supported by a smaller number of people of writing age.
This is why our productivity issues are so important. If the average output of a worker is increasing by 2% a year then it will double over their working lives meaning that the unfavourable movement in the ratio of employees to retired are offset. Unfortunately, that has not been the case for some time making us ever more dependent on changing the ratio by immigration.
Looking after old people is low productivity. Staff-retiree ratios are basically fixed. And the number of people requiring residential care is increasing.
If only we could have a grown up conversation about how to pay for it.
Even if you could sort out social care in terms of more money who exactly is going to be doing the caring . Unless you increase foreign workers which this cesspit government won’t do where are these carers going to come from .
As pay rises more people will be willing to do it. Before you parrot the bullcrap about english people won't do it remember 83% of people doing it are already english. What your lot always means is that english people won't do it for minimum wage
The biggest competitor for care homes are supermarkets which offer more predictable hours, less physically demanding work and the same pay
Besides which, the employees don't form attachments to their favourite boxes of cereal and then have to watch, powerless, whilst most of them die all at once of a hideous plague.
So we come back to the same old problem: decent care demands more investment, the elderly will benefit from the investment but, owing to the composition of the electorate, if that's going to happen then the young will be expected to cover the entire cost.
And which is why Italy and Japan are fucked, and why we need to be very careful not to follow them down the rabbit hole.
As far as I can see, deal with the problem one of three ways:
1. Import a continuous flow of young people from elsewhere (but that just kicks the can down the road - they will all get old eventually - whilst exacerbating the tremendous housing problem) 2. Alter patterns of retirement and encourage/persuade/force people to work until they are much older (through a combination of measures such as phasing in the payment of the state pension and encouraging part-time working for older employees) 3. Borrow more, tax more, borrow more, tax more, until the economy collapses (hopefully on someone else's watch)
No prizes for guessing which way the Government is likely to jump.
Imagine a situation where everyone had 2.1 kids, and life expectancy was static.
In that circumstance, the state is in a good state. The ratio of workers to retirees is stable.
Now imagine that the birth rate has dropped to 1. Now, every generation, there are half as many kids as parents. That's big trouble that is the pensions and healthcare of the retirees is paid by the workers. And that ratio is now looking uglier every generation. (And such a scenario encourages emigration too... Who wants to hang around and hand over all their paycheck to support oldies, further worsening the dependency ratio.)
Oh, but it gets worse. People are still living longer. So there are ever more retirees being supported by a smaller number of people of writing age.
… and then cut off a major source of young workers by leaving the single market.
Tonight we are seeing a little of the possible vulnerability of Boris' Tory Party. There are certain problems not soluble by three word slogans, nor by expelling everyone who takes a different view, nor by simply declaring the issue solved. Some take nuance, balance, long-term planning and compromise. The electorate needs to be prepared for that with blunt explanation of why this must be, not simply telling them what they want to hear.
Rip up the HRA Shoot the Immigrants Make Space
I have a better plan. As no country seems willing to be our offshore centre, we need to seize control of some islands, thousands of miles from these shores. The asylum seekers could be shipped there by boat, perhaps from Bristol. In order to keep them busy while incarcerated we could get them to grow and harvest sugar and other commodities, which could be shipped here on the return voyage.
We could name this the the Royal African Company, and erect statues of those who came up with the scheme.
You are arguing we should reward those that break the law?
The trouble with people like you foxy is you are quick to say we should not do that. Not so quick to actually come up with what do we do apart from the common lefty chant "Let them all in"
I haven't argued to let them all in, and I challenge you to find a post in my 25 000 that advocated that. You won't find one.
Do you agree the current situation is unworkable? If so how would you propose to solve it. Bearing in mind the only rl solution that seems to work is the australian one of placing boat people on a remote island
I would intern all arrivals in camps in the UK, with legal and related services to assess their claims, and onsite courts. I would settle cases within months by investing in the legal system, and even with appeals it should be possible to decide all cases in six months.
Successful cases would get Leave to Remain for a set time, perhaps five years, followed by a review. Their LTR could be withdrawn early for criminal activity or inciting violence etc. After 5 years they would need to prove that their home country remained unsafe before being renewed.
Unsuccessful cases would remain in the internment camps until deported. Countries that refused to take back deported would face withdrawal of aid, or economic sanctions.
I would balance the stick with the carrot of aid programmes to assist countries with large numbers of local refugees such as Lebanon, and an active policy to promote peace and reduce the civil conflict that drives refugees, again via the aid budget.
Even if you could sort out social care in terms of more money who exactly is going to be doing the caring . Unless you increase foreign workers which this cesspit government won’t do where are these carers going to come from .
As pay rises more people will be willing to do it. Before you parrot the bullcrap about english people won't do it remember 83% of people doing it are already english. What your lot always means is that english people won't do it for minimum wage
The biggest competitor for care homes are supermarkets which offer more predictable hours, less physically demanding work and the same pay
Besides which, the employees don't form attachments to their favourite boxes of cereal and then have to watch, powerless, whilst most of them die all at once of a hideous plague.
So we come back to the same old problem: decent care demands more investment, the elderly will benefit from the investment but, owing to the composition of the electorate, if that's going to happen then the young will be expected to cover the entire cost.
And which is why Italy and Japan are fucked, and why we need to be very careful not to follow them down the rabbit hole.
As far as I can see, deal with the problem one of three ways:
1. Import a continuous flow of young people from elsewhere (but that just kicks the can down the road - they will all get old eventually - whilst exacerbating the tremendous housing problem) 2. Alter patterns of retirement and encourage/persuade/force people to work until they are much older (through a combination of measures such as phasing in the payment of the state pension and encouraging part-time working for older employees) 3. Borrow more, tax more, borrow more, tax more, until the economy collapses (hopefully on someone else's watch)
No prizes for guessing which way the Government is likely to jump.
Imagine a situation where everyone had 2.1 kids, and life expectancy was static.
In that circumstance, the state is in a good state. The ratio of workers to retirees is stable.
Now imagine that the birth rate has dropped to 1. Now, every generation, there are half as many kids as parents. That's big trouble that is the pensions and healthcare of the retirees is paid by the workers. And that ratio is now looking uglier every generation. (And such a scenario encourages emigration too... Who wants to hang around and hand over all their paycheck to support oldies, further worsening the dependency ratio.)
Oh, but it gets worse. People are still living longer. So there are ever more retirees being supported by a smaller number of people of writing age.
This is why our productivity issues are so important. If the average output of a worker is increasing by 2% a year then it will double over their working lives meaning that the unfavourable movement in the ratio of employees to retired are offset. Unfortunately, that has not been the case for some time making us ever more dependent on changing the ratio by immigration.
Looking after old people is low productivity. Staff-retiree ratios are basically fixed. And the number of people requiring residential care is increasing.
If only we could have a grown up conversation about how to pay for it.
Instead we have people who celebrate the fact that the government is no longer talking about questions that actually matter: thank goodness, they say, that the Government is not doing anything stupid like discuss the actual costs of providing care for the elderly.
Tonight we are seeing a little of the possible vulnerability of Boris' Tory Party. There are certain problems not soluble by three word slogans, nor by expelling everyone who takes a different view, nor by simply declaring the issue solved. Some take nuance, balance, long-term planning and compromise. The electorate needs to be prepared for that with blunt explanation of why this must be, not simply telling them what they want to hear.
Rip up the HRA Shoot the Immigrants Make Space
I have a better plan. As no country seems willing to be our offshore centre, we need to seize control of some islands, thousands of miles from these shores. The asylum seekers could be shipped there by boat, perhaps from Bristol. In order to keep them busy while incarcerated we could get them to grow and harvest sugar and other commodities, which could be shipped here on the return voyage.
We could name this the the Royal African Company, and erect statues of those who came up with the scheme.
You are arguing we should reward those that break the law?
The trouble with people like you foxy is you are quick to say we should not do that. Not so quick to actually come up with what do we do apart from the common lefty chant "Let them all in"
I haven't argued to let them all in, and I challenge you to find a post in my 25 000 that advocated that. You won't find one.
Do you agree the current situation is unworkable? If so how would you propose to solve it. Bearing in mind the only rl solution that seems to work is the australian one of placing boat people on a remote island
I would intern all arrivals in camps in the UK, with legal and related services to assess their claims, and onsite courts. I would settle cases within months by investing in the legal system, and even with appeals it should be possible to decide all cases in six months.
Successful cases would get Leave to Remain for a set time, perhaps five years, followed by a review. Their LTR could be withdrawn early for criminal activity or inciting violence etc. After 5 years they would need to prove that their home country remained unsafe before being renewed.
Unsuccessful cases would remain in the internment camps until deported. Countries that refused to take back deported would face withdrawal of aid, or economic sanctions.
I would balance the stick with the carrot of aid programmes to assist countries with large numbers of local refugees such as Lebanon, and an active policy to promote peace and reduce the civil conflict that drives refugees, again via the aid budget.
And people who have destroyed their papers?
The same problem as we have now. They would stay interned until identified.
I would also regard proof of identity as a core part of establishing a successful asylum claim.
Tonight we are seeing a little of the possible vulnerability of Boris' Tory Party. There are certain problems not soluble by three word slogans, nor by expelling everyone who takes a different view, nor by simply declaring the issue solved. Some take nuance, balance, long-term planning and compromise. The electorate needs to be prepared for that with blunt explanation of why this must be, not simply telling them what they want to hear.
Rip up the HRA Shoot the Immigrants Make Space
I have a better plan. As no country seems willing to be our offshore centre, we need to seize control of some islands, thousands of miles from these shores. The asylum seekers could be shipped there by boat, perhaps from Bristol. In order to keep them busy while incarcerated we could get them to grow and harvest sugar and other commodities, which could be shipped here on the return voyage.
We could name this the the Royal African Company, and erect statues of those who came up with the scheme.
You are arguing we should reward those that break the law?
The trouble with people like you foxy is you are quick to say we should not do that. Not so quick to actually come up with what do we do apart from the common lefty chant "Let them all in"
I haven't argued to let them all in, and I challenge you to find a post in my 25 000 that advocated that. You won't find one.
Do you agree the current situation is unworkable? If so how would you propose to solve it. Bearing in mind the only rl solution that seems to work is the australian one of placing boat people on a remote island
I would intern all arrivals in camps in the UK, with legal and related services to assess their claims, and onsite courts. I would settle cases within months by investing in the legal system, and even with appeals it should be possible to decide all cases in six months.
Successful cases would get Leave to Remain for a set time, perhaps five years, followed by a review. Their LTR could be withdrawn early for criminal activity or inciting violence etc. After 5 years they would need to prove that their home country remained unsafe before being renewed.
Unsuccessful cases would remain in the internment camps until deported. Countries that refused to take back deported would face withdrawal of aid, or economic sanctions.
I would balance the stick with the carrot of aid programmes to assist countries with large numbers of local refugees such as Lebanon, and an active policy to promote peace and reduce the civil conflict that drives refugees, again via the aid budget.
Even if you could sort out social care in terms of more money who exactly is going to be doing the caring . Unless you increase foreign workers which this cesspit government won’t do where are these carers going to come from .
As pay rises more people will be willing to do it. Before you parrot the bullcrap about english people won't do it remember 83% of people doing it are already english. What your lot always means is that english people won't do it for minimum wage
The biggest competitor for care homes are supermarkets which offer more predictable hours, less physically demanding work and the same pay
The problem for care homes is that they are caught between buyers of their services who are starved of cash (local councils) and their employees (who can earn the same or more in nicer conditions at the supermarket).
This isn't a problem of Brexit, but of an ageing population and an unwillingness to discuss how to pay for care of the elderly (see May, T).
The images of 450 migrants simply beaching in Kent, in one single day, and then scattering are absolutely appalling for the Tories
TAKE BACK CONTROL?!
If they don't get a grip on this the government is fucked
Yep.
The Alf Garnett voters who basically don't like brown and black people arriving on our shores and who voted for Boris to stop them will be seething under their Costa del Sol parasols.
Don’t forget the Andalusian Alf Garnetts who basically don’t like rednecked Boris-voting immigrants arriving on their shores.
Such sharp dialogue might well watch the whole thing again.
Oh and a sub plot of some Cubans making their way to America some of whom died on the way and Pres. Bartlett says let the survivors in. That's how to do it.
I recommend it. Am near the end of Series 3 now. Amazing to see how politics has changed for the worse over there in 20 years. Yes, I know it's fictionalised.
West Wing was Dem wish fulfillment fantasy. American Politics was never like how it portrayed.
Such sharp dialogue might well watch the whole thing again.
Oh and a sub plot of some Cubans making their way to America some of whom died on the way and Pres. Bartlett says let the survivors in. That's how to do it.
I recommend it. Am near the end of Series 3 now. Amazing to see how politics has changed for the worse over there in 20 years. Yes, I know it's fictionalised.
West Wing was Dem wish fulfillment fantasy. American Politics was never like how it portrayed.
My wife painted Allison Janney's dogs, and therefore I got to meet her when she came round to our house.
She was completely delightful. I just thought I should mention that.
Tonight we are seeing a little of the possible vulnerability of Boris' Tory Party. There are certain problems not soluble by three word slogans, nor by expelling everyone who takes a different view, nor by simply declaring the issue solved. Some take nuance, balance, long-term planning and compromise. The electorate needs to be prepared for that with blunt explanation of why this must be, not simply telling them what they want to hear.
Rip up the HRA Shoot the Immigrants Make Space
I have a better plan. As no country seems willing to be our offshore centre, we need to seize control of some islands, thousands of miles from these shores. The asylum seekers could be shipped there by boat, perhaps from Bristol. In order to keep them busy while incarcerated we could get them to grow and harvest sugar and other commodities, which could be shipped here on the return voyage.
We could name this the the Royal African Company, and erect statues of those who came up with the scheme.
You are arguing we should reward those that break the law?
The trouble with people like you foxy is you are quick to say we should not do that. Not so quick to actually come up with what do we do apart from the common lefty chant "Let them all in"
I haven't argued to let them all in, and I challenge you to find a post in my 25 000 that advocated that. You won't find one.
Do you agree the current situation is unworkable? If so how would you propose to solve it. Bearing in mind the only rl solution that seems to work is the australian one of placing boat people on a remote island
I would intern all arrivals in camps in the UK, with legal and related services to assess their claims, and onsite courts. I would settle cases within months by investing in the legal system, and even with appeals it should be possible to decide all cases in six months.
Successful cases would get Leave to Remain for a set time, perhaps five years, followed by a review. Their LTR could be withdrawn early for criminal activity or inciting violence etc. After 5 years they would need to prove that their home country remained unsafe before being renewed.
Unsuccessful cases would remain in the internment camps until deported. Countries that refused to take back deported would face withdrawal of aid, or economic sanctions.
I would balance the stick with the carrot of aid programmes to assist countries with large numbers of local refugees such as Lebanon, and an active policy to promote peace and reduce the civil conflict that drives refugees, again via the aid budget.
And people who have destroyed their papers?
The same problem as we have now. They would stay interned until identified.
I would also regard proof of identity as a core part of establishing a successful asylum claim.
And what is the philosophical issue with doing interning offshore rather than onshore?
Tonight we are seeing a little of the possible vulnerability of Boris' Tory Party. There are certain problems not soluble by three word slogans, nor by expelling everyone who takes a different view, nor by simply declaring the issue solved. Some take nuance, balance, long-term planning and compromise. The electorate needs to be prepared for that with blunt explanation of why this must be, not simply telling them what they want to hear.
Rip up the HRA Shoot the Immigrants Make Space
I have a better plan. As no country seems willing to be our offshore centre, we need to seize control of some islands, thousands of miles from these shores. The asylum seekers could be shipped there by boat, perhaps from Bristol. In order to keep them busy while incarcerated we could get them to grow and harvest sugar and other commodities, which could be shipped here on the return voyage.
We could name this the the Royal African Company, and erect statues of those who came up with the scheme.
You are arguing we should reward those that break the law?
The trouble with people like you foxy is you are quick to say we should not do that. Not so quick to actually come up with what do we do apart from the common lefty chant "Let them all in"
I haven't argued to let them all in, and I challenge you to find a post in my 25 000 that advocated that. You won't find one.
Do you agree the current situation is unworkable? If so how would you propose to solve it. Bearing in mind the only rl solution that seems to work is the australian one of placing boat people on a remote island
I would intern all arrivals in camps in the UK, with legal and related services to assess their claims, and onsite courts. I would settle cases within months by investing in the legal system, and even with appeals it should be possible to decide all cases in six months.
Successful cases would get Leave to Remain for a set time, perhaps five years, followed by a review. Their LTR could be withdrawn early for criminal activity or inciting violence etc. After 5 years they would need to prove that their home country remained unsafe before being renewed.
Unsuccessful cases would remain in the internment camps until deported. Countries that refused to take back deported would face withdrawal of aid, or economic sanctions.
I would balance the stick with the carrot of aid programmes to assist countries with large numbers of local refugees such as Lebanon, and an active policy to promote peace and reduce the civil conflict that drives refugees, again via the aid budget.
Which would still see a hung parliament on the UK Survation numbers and PM Starmer propped up by the SNP and LDs, the SDLP, PC, Alliance and Greens despite another Tory majority in England.
The DUP would not support the Tories again unless they removed the Irish Sea border
Err… yes. Thanks. Hate to be a pain, but I repeat my question:
Scottish figures are largely irrelevant to the UK total unless the SCons take the lead as the SNP will prop up Labour anyway, so your Scottish subsample demand is also largely irrelevant.
However the Scottish figures are SNP 39%, Tories 22%, Labour 19%, Greens 5%, LDs 4%
Nope. Now you’re answering a question I did not ask. I know it’s terribly old-fashioned, but could you give a straight answer to a straight question? Please inform us where you got the figures you pumped in to Martin Baxter’s ElectoralCalculus calculator:
For unless the Scottish Conservatives take the lead in Scotland whether the SNP lead or SLab lead it makes no difference, their MPs will both make Starmer PM
Nope, you are still obfuscating. The link you provided does not contain the numbers you yourself pumped into Baxter’s calculator.
Please inform us where you got the figures you entered in to the ElectoralCalculus calculator:
Nope Nats like you have got to realise not all polls revolve around you, I have now given you both the UK and Scottish Survation figures both of which would make Starmer PM with minor parties support, exactly as the 2019 Scottish numbers would.
You are Labour's little helpers at Westminster so obviously we don't give a toss precisely how many little Nationalists there are at Westminster as you will all be making Starmer PM anyway. Unless the SCons make significant gains in Scotland, Scottish figures are therefore irrelevant for UK elections
BritNats like you have got to realise that folk can see through all your huffing and puffing. Behind the bravado you’re shitting it.
Everybody can clearly see how you are allocating figures to the Scottish parties, so it is you that is clearly obsessed with Scottish electoral behaviour.
Fascinatingly, you are predicting the following Unionist losses:
SNP gains from SCon: Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine Dumfries and Galloway (Alister Jack, Secretary of State for Scotland) Moray (Douglas Ross, Leader of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party)
SNP gains from SLD: Caithness Sutherland and Easter Ross Edinburgh West North East Fife Orkney and Shetland (Alistair Carmichael, former Secretary of State for Scotland)
As I also posted the actual Scottish figures show your pathetic party down to just 39% from the 45% you got in 2019.
However it matters not a jot, the little Nationalists would still have the numbers to prop up Starmer with the LDs and other minor parties in a hung parliament.
As long as we Tories are in power we can and will refuse indyref2 and as Union matters are reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998 there is sod all you can do about it.
If Starmer gets in however and needs your support to get in power and offers you indyref2 and devomax that is his affair not ours
I mean its your affair too as you’ll have to live with the consequence of the breakup of our country but I know your short-termism doesn't look that far ahead.
It would be disappointing of course but if Starmer gave in to the SNP because he needed their support to stay PM in a hung parliament and gave them a legal indyref2 and lost, even after offering Scots devomax then he would immediately lose power.
As soon as Scottish MPs left the Commons after a Scexit vote we Tories would return to power without an election as we would still have a majority in England, Wales and NI alone. We would then shift to an English Nationalist agenda and take as hard a line as possible with the SNP in Scexit talks. We would also dominate English politics for a further generation.
Labour meanwhile having lost Scotland would be utterly screwed. Only 5 times since 1945 have Labour won a majority without Scottish MPs, in 1945, 1966, 1997, 2001 and 2005 and most of those were under Blair
Tonight we are seeing a little of the possible vulnerability of Boris' Tory Party. There are certain problems not soluble by three word slogans, nor by expelling everyone who takes a different view, nor by simply declaring the issue solved. Some take nuance, balance, long-term planning and compromise. The electorate needs to be prepared for that with blunt explanation of why this must be, not simply telling them what they want to hear.
Rip up the HRA Shoot the Immigrants Make Space
I have a better plan. As no country seems willing to be our offshore centre, we need to seize control of some islands, thousands of miles from these shores. The asylum seekers could be shipped there by boat, perhaps from Bristol. In order to keep them busy while incarcerated we could get them to grow and harvest sugar and other commodities, which could be shipped here on the return voyage.
We could name this the the Royal African Company, and erect statues of those who came up with the scheme.
You are arguing we should reward those that break the law?
The trouble with people like you foxy is you are quick to say we should not do that. Not so quick to actually come up with what do we do apart from the common lefty chant "Let them all in"
I haven't argued to let them all in, and I challenge you to find a post in my 25 000 that advocated that. You won't find one.
Do you agree the current situation is unworkable? If so how would you propose to solve it. Bearing in mind the only rl solution that seems to work is the australian one of placing boat people on a remote island
I would intern all arrivals in camps in the UK, with legal and related services to assess their claims, and onsite courts. I would settle cases within months by investing in the legal system, and even with appeals it should be possible to decide all cases in six months.
Successful cases would get Leave to Remain for a set time, perhaps five years, followed by a review. Their LTR could be withdrawn early for criminal activity or inciting violence etc. After 5 years they would need to prove that their home country remained unsafe before being renewed.
Unsuccessful cases would remain in the internment camps until deported. Countries that refused to take back deported would face withdrawal of aid, or economic sanctions.
I would balance the stick with the carrot of aid programmes to assist countries with large numbers of local refugees such as Lebanon, and an active policy to promote peace and reduce the civil conflict that drives refugees, again via the aid budget.
And people who have destroyed their papers?
The same problem as we have now. They would stay interned until identified.
I would also regard proof of identity as a core part of establishing a successful asylum claim.
And what is the philosophical issue with doing interning offshore rather than onshore?
The provision of legal and health services is more difficult.
The practical issue is that no country is willing to be our offshore centre. We could institute internment camps domestically much more quickly.
I suspect that arrivals of bogus cases would drop promptly, so the camps may not need to be that extensive.
Such sharp dialogue might well watch the whole thing again.
Oh and a sub plot of some Cubans making their way to America some of whom died on the way and Pres. Bartlett says let the survivors in. That's how to do it.
I recommend it. Am near the end of Series 3 now. Amazing to see how politics has changed for the worse over there in 20 years. Yes, I know it's fictionalised.
West Wing was Dem wish fulfillment fantasy. American Politics was never like how it portrayed.
My wife painted Allison Janney's dogs, and therefore I got to meet her when she came round to our house.
She was completely delightful. I just thought I should mention that.
That's good to hear as she has always seemed delightful in everything I've seen her do and it is good to get confirmation and not have preconceptions shattered.
Which would still see a hung parliament on the UK Survation numbers and PM Starmer propped up by the SNP and LDs, the SDLP, PC, Alliance and Greens despite another Tory majority in England.
The DUP would not support the Tories again unless they removed the Irish Sea border
Err… yes. Thanks. Hate to be a pain, but I repeat my question:
Scottish figures are largely irrelevant to the UK total unless the SCons take the lead as the SNP will prop up Labour anyway, so your Scottish subsample demand is also largely irrelevant.
However the Scottish figures are SNP 39%, Tories 22%, Labour 19%, Greens 5%, LDs 4%
Nope. Now you’re answering a question I did not ask. I know it’s terribly old-fashioned, but could you give a straight answer to a straight question? Please inform us where you got the figures you pumped in to Martin Baxter’s ElectoralCalculus calculator:
For unless the Scottish Conservatives take the lead in Scotland whether the SNP lead or SLab lead it makes no difference, their MPs will both make Starmer PM
Nope, you are still obfuscating. The link you provided does not contain the numbers you yourself pumped into Baxter’s calculator.
Please inform us where you got the figures you entered in to the ElectoralCalculus calculator:
Nope Nats like you have got to realise not all polls revolve around you, I have now given you both the UK and Scottish Survation figures both of which would make Starmer PM with minor parties support, exactly as the 2019 Scottish numbers would.
You are Labour's little helpers at Westminster so obviously we don't give a toss precisely how many little Nationalists there are at Westminster as you will all be making Starmer PM anyway. Unless the SCons make significant gains in Scotland, Scottish figures are therefore irrelevant for UK elections
BritNats like you have got to realise that folk can see through all your huffing and puffing. Behind the bravado you’re shitting it.
Everybody can clearly see how you are allocating figures to the Scottish parties, so it is you that is clearly obsessed with Scottish electoral behaviour.
Fascinatingly, you are predicting the following Unionist losses:
SNP gains from SCon: Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine Dumfries and Galloway (Alister Jack, Secretary of State for Scotland) Moray (Douglas Ross, Leader of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party)
SNP gains from SLD: Caithness Sutherland and Easter Ross Edinburgh West North East Fife Orkney and Shetland (Alistair Carmichael, former Secretary of State for Scotland)
As I also posted the actual Scottish figures show your pathetic party down to just 39% from the 45% you got in 2019.
However it matters not a jot, the little Nationalists would still have the numbers to prop up Starmer with the LDs and other minor parties in a hung parliament.
As long as we Tories are in power we can and will refuse indyref2 and as Union matters are reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998 there is sod all you can do about it.
If Starmer gets in however and needs your support to get in power and offers you indyref2 and devomax that is his affair not ours
I mean its your affair too as you’ll have to live with the consequence of the breakup of our country but I know your short-termism doesn't look that far ahead.
It would be disappointing of course but if Starmer gave in to the SNP because he needed their support to stay PM in a hung parliament and gave them a legal indyref2 and lost, even after offering Scots devomax then he would immediately lose power.
As soon as Scottish MPs left the Commons after a Scexit vote we Tories would return to power without an election as we would have a majority in England, Wales and NI alone. We would then shift to an English Nationalist agenda and take as hard a line as possible with the SNP in Scexit talks. We would also dominate English politics for a further generation.
Labour meanwhile having lost Scotland would be utterly screwed. Only 3 times since 1945 have Labour won a majority without Scottish MPs, in 1945, 1966, 1997, 2001 and 2005 and most of those were under Blair
Nah, wouldn’t happen. He’d pass a bill moving from FPTP to a more proportionate system in the hope of retaining power,and he’d dissolve parliament.
The population of Florida would appear to be slightly less than half that of England. If they've really got over 27k in hospital then that would be considerably worse than the peak of the January wave here. Whether some of this is a function of the Americans having more hospital capacity and a greater tendency to admit moderate cases than the distressed NHS I don't know, but it certainly looks bad over there at the moment.
I don't think that hospitalizations number is correct, although it's hard to know because the State announced last month that it would be longer release hospitalization statistics.
That's the USA figures isn't it?
That said it looks like Florida cases are absolutely exploding. Florida has about 25% of all US cases.
Tonight we are seeing a little of the possible vulnerability of Boris' Tory Party. There are certain problems not soluble by three word slogans, nor by expelling everyone who takes a different view, nor by simply declaring the issue solved. Some take nuance, balance, long-term planning and compromise. The electorate needs to be prepared for that with blunt explanation of why this must be, not simply telling them what they want to hear.
Rip up the HRA Shoot the Immigrants Make Space
I have a better plan. As no country seems willing to be our offshore centre, we need to seize control of some islands, thousands of miles from these shores. The asylum seekers could be shipped there by boat, perhaps from Bristol. In order to keep them busy while incarcerated we could get them to grow and harvest sugar and other commodities, which could be shipped here on the return voyage.
We could name this the the Royal African Company, and erect statues of those who came up with the scheme.
You are arguing we should reward those that break the law?
The trouble with people like you foxy is you are quick to say we should not do that. Not so quick to actually come up with what do we do apart from the common lefty chant "Let them all in"
I haven't argued to let them all in, and I challenge you to find a post in my 25 000 that advocated that. You won't find one.
Do you agree the current situation is unworkable? If so how would you propose to solve it. Bearing in mind the only rl solution that seems to work is the australian one of placing boat people on a remote island
I would intern all arrivals in camps in the UK, with legal and related services to assess their claims, and onsite courts. I would settle cases within months by investing in the legal system, and even with appeals it should be possible to decide all cases in six months.
Successful cases would get Leave to Remain for a set time, perhaps five years, followed by a review. Their LTR could be withdrawn early for criminal activity or inciting violence etc. After 5 years they would need to prove that their home country remained unsafe before being renewed.
Unsuccessful cases would remain in the internment camps until deported. Countries that refused to take back deported would face withdrawal of aid, or economic sanctions.
I would balance the stick with the carrot of aid programmes to assist countries with large numbers of local refugees such as Lebanon, and an active policy to promote peace and reduce the civil conflict that drives refugees, again via the aid budget.
And people who have destroyed their papers?
The same problem as we have now. They would stay interned until identified.
I would also regard proof of identity as a core part of establishing a successful asylum claim.
And what is the philosophical issue with doing interning offshore rather than onshore?
The provision of legal and health services is more difficult.
The practical issue is that no country is willing to be our offshore centre. We could institute internment camps domestically much more quickly.
I suspect that arrivals of bogus cases would drop promptly, so the camps may not need to be that extensive.
Isn't this an example of a false dichotomy?
There's no reason why we cannot both:
(a) improve the funding (and speed) of immigration assessment in the UK while (b) choosing to process those who come via unconventional routes (i.e. seaborne from France) off-shore
So long as we are significantly richer and privileged people will come to the UK for a better life. With the Internet there is no hiding. It’s all there, plain to see. There we are on our island enjoying, if not flaunting, the relative luxury our forefathers created for us. The less fortunate will come to be part of that and do the all things we don’t want to do.
Which would still see a hung parliament on the UK Survation numbers and PM Starmer propped up by the SNP and LDs, the SDLP, PC, Alliance and Greens despite another Tory majority in England.
The DUP would not support the Tories again unless they removed the Irish Sea border
Err… yes. Thanks. Hate to be a pain, but I repeat my question:
Scottish figures are largely irrelevant to the UK total unless the SCons take the lead as the SNP will prop up Labour anyway, so your Scottish subsample demand is also largely irrelevant.
However the Scottish figures are SNP 39%, Tories 22%, Labour 19%, Greens 5%, LDs 4%
Nope. Now you’re answering a question I did not ask. I know it’s terribly old-fashioned, but could you give a straight answer to a straight question? Please inform us where you got the figures you pumped in to Martin Baxter’s ElectoralCalculus calculator:
For unless the Scottish Conservatives take the lead in Scotland whether the SNP lead or SLab lead it makes no difference, their MPs will both make Starmer PM
Nope, you are still obfuscating. The link you provided does not contain the numbers you yourself pumped into Baxter’s calculator.
Please inform us where you got the figures you entered in to the ElectoralCalculus calculator:
Nope Nats like you have got to realise not all polls revolve around you, I have now given you both the UK and Scottish Survation figures both of which would make Starmer PM with minor parties support, exactly as the 2019 Scottish numbers would.
You are Labour's little helpers at Westminster so obviously we don't give a toss precisely how many little Nationalists there are at Westminster as you will all be making Starmer PM anyway. Unless the SCons make significant gains in Scotland, Scottish figures are therefore irrelevant for UK elections
BritNats like you have got to realise that folk can see through all your huffing and puffing. Behind the bravado you’re shitting it.
Everybody can clearly see how you are allocating figures to the Scottish parties, so it is you that is clearly obsessed with Scottish electoral behaviour.
Fascinatingly, you are predicting the following Unionist losses:
SNP gains from SCon: Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine Dumfries and Galloway (Alister Jack, Secretary of State for Scotland) Moray (Douglas Ross, Leader of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party)
SNP gains from SLD: Caithness Sutherland and Easter Ross Edinburgh West North East Fife Orkney and Shetland (Alistair Carmichael, former Secretary of State for Scotland)
As I also posted the actual Scottish figures show your pathetic party down to just 39% from the 45% you got in 2019.
However it matters not a jot, the little Nationalists would still have the numbers to prop up Starmer with the LDs and other minor parties in a hung parliament.
As long as we Tories are in power we can and will refuse indyref2 and as Union matters are reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998 there is sod all you can do about it.
If Starmer gets in however and needs your support to get in power and offers you indyref2 and devomax that is his affair not ours
I mean its your affair too as you’ll have to live with the consequence of the breakup of our country but I know your short-termism doesn't look that far ahead.
It would be disappointing of course but if Starmer gave in to the SNP because he needed their support to stay PM in a hung parliament and gave them a legal indyref2 and lost, even after offering Scots devomax then he would immediately lose power.
As soon as Scottish MPs left the Commons after a Scexit vote we Tories would return to power without an election as we would have a majority in England, Wales and NI alone. We would then shift to an English Nationalist agenda and take as hard a line as possible with the SNP in Scexit talks. We would also dominate English politics for a further generation.
Labour meanwhile having lost Scotland would be utterly screwed. Only 3 times since 1945 have Labour won a majority without Scottish MPs, in 1945, 1966, 1997, 2001 and 2005 and most of those were under Blair
Nah, wouldn’t happen. He’d pass a bill moving from FPTP to a more proportionate system in the hope of retaining power,and he’d dissolve parliament.
He couldn't pass it without SNP support and even if he managed to before they left the Commons even under PR we would likely see a repeat of the 2015 result and a Tory and UKIP/Farage combined majority on votes (the Tories and UKIP got 54% of the vote combined in England in 2015 and add in the DUP too) to screw the SNP and end all spending to Scotland as soon as possible as English voters turned English Nationalist.
There would then also be a hard border and customs posts from Berwick to Carlisle
So long as we are significantly richer and privileged people will come to the UK for a better life. With the Internet there is no hiding. It’s all there, plain to see. There we are on our island enjoying, if not flaunting, the relative luxury our forefathers created for us. The less fortunate will come to be part of that and do the all things we don’t want to do.
Dont say things like that ....before you can say coco plantation some woke shit will appear about slavery and so on and so forth...
Tonight we are seeing a little of the possible vulnerability of Boris' Tory Party. There are certain problems not soluble by three word slogans, nor by expelling everyone who takes a different view, nor by simply declaring the issue solved. Some take nuance, balance, long-term planning and compromise. The electorate needs to be prepared for that with blunt explanation of why this must be, not simply telling them what they want to hear.
Rip up the HRA Shoot the Immigrants Make Space
I have a better plan. As no country seems willing to be our offshore centre, we need to seize control of some islands, thousands of miles from these shores. The asylum seekers could be shipped there by boat, perhaps from Bristol. In order to keep them busy while incarcerated we could get them to grow and harvest sugar and other commodities, which could be shipped here on the return voyage.
We could name this the the Royal African Company, and erect statues of those who came up with the scheme.
You are arguing we should reward those that break the law?
The trouble with people like you foxy is you are quick to say we should not do that. Not so quick to actually come up with what do we do apart from the common lefty chant "Let them all in"
I haven't argued to let them all in, and I challenge you to find a post in my 25 000 that advocated that. You won't find one.
Do you agree the current situation is unworkable? If so how would you propose to solve it. Bearing in mind the only rl solution that seems to work is the australian one of placing boat people on a remote island
I would intern all arrivals in camps in the UK, with legal and related services to assess their claims, and onsite courts. I would settle cases within months by investing in the legal system, and even with appeals it should be possible to decide all cases in six months.
Successful cases would get Leave to Remain for a set time, perhaps five years, followed by a review. Their LTR could be withdrawn early for criminal activity or inciting violence etc. After 5 years they would need to prove that their home country remained unsafe before being renewed.
Unsuccessful cases would remain in the internment camps until deported. Countries that refused to take back deported would face withdrawal of aid, or economic sanctions.
I would balance the stick with the carrot of aid programmes to assist countries with large numbers of local refugees such as Lebanon, and an active policy to promote peace and reduce the civil conflict that drives refugees, again via the aid budget.
And people who have destroyed their papers?
The same problem as we have now. They would stay interned until identified.
I would also regard proof of identity as a core part of establishing a successful asylum claim.
And what is the philosophical issue with doing interning offshore rather than onshore?
The provision of legal and health services is more difficult.
The practical issue is that no country is willing to be our offshore centre. We could institute internment camps domestically much more quickly.
I suspect that arrivals of bogus cases would drop promptly, so the camps may not need to be that extensive.
Isn't this an example of a false dichotomy?
There's no reason why we cannot both:
(a) improve the funding (and speed) of immigration assessment in the UK while (b) choosing to process those who come via unconventional routes (i.e. seaborne from France) off-shore
I agree. I just don't think any country is willing to be our offshore internment camp.
Investment in legal services is much needed in this country, not just in asylum law. Things go far too slowly.
Which would still see a hung parliament on the UK Survation numbers and PM Starmer propped up by the SNP and LDs, the SDLP, PC, Alliance and Greens despite another Tory majority in England.
The DUP would not support the Tories again unless they removed the Irish Sea border
Err… yes. Thanks. Hate to be a pain, but I repeat my question:
Scottish figures are largely irrelevant to the UK total unless the SCons take the lead as the SNP will prop up Labour anyway, so your Scottish subsample demand is also largely irrelevant.
However the Scottish figures are SNP 39%, Tories 22%, Labour 19%, Greens 5%, LDs 4%
Nope. Now you’re answering a question I did not ask. I know it’s terribly old-fashioned, but could you give a straight answer to a straight question? Please inform us where you got the figures you pumped in to Martin Baxter’s ElectoralCalculus calculator:
For unless the Scottish Conservatives take the lead in Scotland whether the SNP lead or SLab lead it makes no difference, their MPs will both make Starmer PM
Nope, you are still obfuscating. The link you provided does not contain the numbers you yourself pumped into Baxter’s calculator.
Please inform us where you got the figures you entered in to the ElectoralCalculus calculator:
Nope Nats like you have got to realise not all polls revolve around you, I have now given you both the UK and Scottish Survation figures both of which would make Starmer PM with minor parties support, exactly as the 2019 Scottish numbers would.
You are Labour's little helpers at Westminster so obviously we don't give a toss precisely how many little Nationalists there are at Westminster as you will all be making Starmer PM anyway. Unless the SCons make significant gains in Scotland, Scottish figures are therefore irrelevant for UK elections
BritNats like you have got to realise that folk can see through all your huffing and puffing. Behind the bravado you’re shitting it.
Everybody can clearly see how you are allocating figures to the Scottish parties, so it is you that is clearly obsessed with Scottish electoral behaviour.
Fascinatingly, you are predicting the following Unionist losses:
SNP gains from SCon: Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine Dumfries and Galloway (Alister Jack, Secretary of State for Scotland) Moray (Douglas Ross, Leader of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party)
SNP gains from SLD: Caithness Sutherland and Easter Ross Edinburgh West North East Fife Orkney and Shetland (Alistair Carmichael, former Secretary of State for Scotland)
As I also posted the actual Scottish figures show your pathetic party down to just 39% from the 45% you got in 2019.
However it matters not a jot, the little Nationalists would still have the numbers to prop up Starmer with the LDs and other minor parties in a hung parliament.
As long as we Tories are in power we can and will refuse indyref2 and as Union matters are reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998 there is sod all you can do about it.
If Starmer gets in however and needs your support to get in power and offers you indyref2 and devomax that is his affair not ours
I mean its your affair too as you’ll have to live with the consequence of the breakup of our country but I know your short-termism doesn't look that far ahead.
It would be disappointing of course but if Starmer gave in to the SNP because he needed their support to stay PM in a hung parliament and gave them a legal indyref2 and lost, even after offering Scots devomax then he would immediately lose power.
As soon as Scottish MPs left the Commons after a Scexit vote we Tories would return to power without an election as we would have a majority in England, Wales and NI alone. We would then shift to an English Nationalist agenda and take as hard a line as possible with the SNP in Scexit talks. We would also dominate English politics for a further generation.
Labour meanwhile having lost Scotland would be utterly screwed. Only 3 times since 1945 have Labour won a majority without Scottish MPs, in 1945, 1966, 1997, 2001 and 2005 and most of those were under Blair
Nah, wouldn’t happen. He’d pass a bill moving from FPTP to a more proportionate system in the hope of retaining power,and he’d dissolve parliament.
He couldn't pass it without SNP support and even if he managed to before they left the Commons even under PR we would likely see a repeat of the 2015 result and a Tory and UKIP/Farage combined majority on votes (add in the DUP too) to screw the SNP and end all spending to Scotland as soon as possible as English voters turned English Nationalist
Morning everyone. I wonder what fresh hell today will bring?
The crucial Wednesday Covid numbers.
Either "peak" delight confirmed or the depth of despair of ever increasing cases.
That delight will be pretty short lived. The true summer peak of cases will be double today's numbers. As I've said many times, there's no alternative options but I don't think there's any mileage in ignoring the current conditions that will lead to huge numbers in the next three to five weeks. All we can hope for is that the threat of vaccine passports has made 2m under 30s get their vaccines.
The open secret in Scottish politics is not that there will be no independence referendum any time soon. It’s that neither the Scottish nor the UK government wants one. Nicola Sturgeon’s sole aim is to be sure Boris Johnson, not her own caution, takes the blame for this. He may be happy enough to accept responsibility, so shoring up the core Tory vote in Scotland.
Sturgeon hopes as a result he becomes even less popular with the rest of Scots. But none of this manoeuvering gets Scotland out of the Groundhog Day of Yes/No, nor comes to a truly settled view on the future, to which a substantial majority assent.
One elephant in the room is independence itself. Sturgeon’s government talks endlessly about a referendum, but never about the practicalities of separation.
Which would still see a hung parliament on the UK Survation numbers and PM Starmer propped up by the SNP and LDs, the SDLP, PC, Alliance and Greens despite another Tory majority in England.
The DUP would not support the Tories again unless they removed the Irish Sea border
Err… yes. Thanks. Hate to be a pain, but I repeat my question:
Scottish figures are largely irrelevant to the UK total unless the SCons take the lead as the SNP will prop up Labour anyway, so your Scottish subsample demand is also largely irrelevant.
However the Scottish figures are SNP 39%, Tories 22%, Labour 19%, Greens 5%, LDs 4%
Nope. Now you’re answering a question I did not ask. I know it’s terribly old-fashioned, but could you give a straight answer to a straight question? Please inform us where you got the figures you pumped in to Martin Baxter’s ElectoralCalculus calculator:
For unless the Scottish Conservatives take the lead in Scotland whether the SNP lead or SLab lead it makes no difference, their MPs will both make Starmer PM
Nope, you are still obfuscating. The link you provided does not contain the numbers you yourself pumped into Baxter’s calculator.
Please inform us where you got the figures you entered in to the ElectoralCalculus calculator:
Nope Nats like you have got to realise not all polls revolve around you, I have now given you both the UK and Scottish Survation figures both of which would make Starmer PM with minor parties support, exactly as the 2019 Scottish numbers would.
You are Labour's little helpers at Westminster so obviously we don't give a toss precisely how many little Nationalists there are at Westminster as you will all be making Starmer PM anyway. Unless the SCons make significant gains in Scotland, Scottish figures are therefore irrelevant for UK elections
BritNats like you have got to realise that folk can see through all your huffing and puffing. Behind the bravado you’re shitting it.
Everybody can clearly see how you are allocating figures to the Scottish parties, so it is you that is clearly obsessed with Scottish electoral behaviour.
Fascinatingly, you are predicting the following Unionist losses:
SNP gains from SCon: Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine Dumfries and Galloway (Alister Jack, Secretary of State for Scotland) Moray (Douglas Ross, Leader of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party)
SNP gains from SLD: Caithness Sutherland and Easter Ross Edinburgh West North East Fife Orkney and Shetland (Alistair Carmichael, former Secretary of State for Scotland)
As I also posted the actual Scottish figures show your pathetic party down to just 39% from the 45% you got in 2019.
However it matters not a jot, the little Nationalists would still have the numbers to prop up Starmer with the LDs and other minor parties in a hung parliament.
As long as we Tories are in power we can and will refuse indyref2 and as Union matters are reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998 there is sod all you can do about it.
If Starmer gets in however and needs your support to get in power and offers you indyref2 and devomax that is his affair not ours
I mean its your affair too as you’ll have to live with the consequence of the breakup of our country but I know your short-termism doesn't look that far ahead.
It would be disappointing of course but if Starmer gave in to the SNP because he needed their support to stay PM in a hung parliament and gave them a legal indyref2 and lost, even after offering Scots devomax then he would immediately lose power.
As soon as Scottish MPs left the Commons after a Scexit vote we Tories would return to power without an election as we would still have a majority in England, Wales and NI alone. We would then shift to an English Nationalist agenda and take as hard a line as possible with the SNP in Scexit talks. We would also dominate English politics for a further generation.
Labour meanwhile having lost Scotland would be utterly screwed. Only 5 times since 1945 have Labour won a majority without Scottish MPs, in 1945, 1966, 1997, 2001 and 2005 and most of those were under Blair
I'm far from sure that such policies would be as enduringly popular as you blithely assume.
Good morning everyone. I see my Essex neighbour, although he's far, far away politically, HYUFD has started on his daily duties. I have to wonder what good he is doing for the Tory Party.
Meanwhile it’s a bright sunny morning again here, after the thunderstorms of last night. Had a u3a interest group in our garden yesterday afternoon, before the rain, where we were entertained with a short display by a red kite and a longer one by some swifts. And later Mrs C & I were cheered by the last minute England victory in the cricket.
Mr. Jonathan, so long as the benefits system requires neither a longstanding residency nor contributions it'll be a huge draw.
Far more than benefits. Earn a premier league wage, drive the cars on top gear, get the girls like Ed Sheehan. It’s all there for you. Add to that you’re not getting bombed, your kids educated and your family will be treated when sick. It’s a no brainier. Not so much on YouTube or TikTok about rainy days and benefits office queues.
Such sharp dialogue might well watch the whole thing again.
Oh and a sub plot of some Cubans making their way to America some of whom died on the way and Pres. Bartlett says let the survivors in. That's how to do it.
I recommend it. Am near the end of Series 3 now. Amazing to see how politics has changed for the worse over there in 20 years. Yes, I know it's fictionalised.
West Wing was Dem wish fulfillment fantasy. American Politics was never like how it portrayed.
My wife painted Allison Janney's dogs, and therefore I got to meet her when she came round to our house.
She was completely delightful. I just thought I should mention that.
“There are fears Sydney's shutdown could be extended into September”
“The slow vaccine uptake has been blamed on the government's failure to secure Pfizer supplies and public fears about very rare clotting from the AstraZeneca jab.”
Chairman of M&S explaining that Brexit means lorries to the EU (or NI) now carry 700 pages of forms for inspection and delays of 24-48 hours at borders mean some perishable goods are being destroyed. The new paperwork is employing a team of 13 people.
I had a box of perishable goods turn up 2 months late. We assumed it had been confiscated by customs and then suddenly gets spat out for delivery. "There are customs fees and charges to pay" said the courier.
Erm no, because 1. The box needs to be destroyed now 2. The box was 1 of 2 in a consignment and 3. the other box got through without charge because the products inside are zero tariff and zero import VAT as shown on the paperwork
It is a lottery. Our customer has seen it take 4 attempts to get properly certified properly written up chilled products across the border in time to be edible. We're largely giving up on chilled as the supply chain just isn't reliable. Which is why for NI the supply route has quickly swung from UK to NI / ROI to France to ROI / NI much to the rage of the unionists.
The Commission’s draft mandate fails to respect essential elements of the framework, does not reflect a real-world solution, and cannot form a basis for negotiations.
The UK, with Gibraltar, and Spain carefully agreed a pragmatic Framework Agreement, in full consultation with the EU Commission. The Commission’s proposed mandate, published today, directly conflicts with that Framework. It seeks to undermine the UK’s sovereignty over Gibraltar, and cannot form a basis for negotiations.
We have consistently showed pragmatism and flexibility in the search for arrangements that work for all sides, and we are disappointed that this has not been reciprocated. We urge the EU to think again.
Chairman of M&S explaining that Brexit means lorries to the EU (or NI) now carry 700 pages of forms for inspection and delays of 24-48 hours at borders mean some perishable goods are being destroyed. The new paperwork is employing a team of 13 people.
I had a box of perishable goods turn up 2 months late. We assumed it had been confiscated by customs and then suddenly gets spat out for delivery. "There are customs fees and charges to pay" said the courier.
Erm no, because 1. The box needs to be destroyed now 2. The box was 1 of 2 in a consignment and 3. the other box got through without charge because the products inside are zero tariff and zero import VAT as shown on the paperwork
It is a lottery. Our customer has seen it take 4 attempts to get properly certified properly written up chilled products across the border in time to be edible. We're largely giving up on chilled as the supply chain just isn't reliable. Which is why for NI the supply route has quickly swung from UK to NI / ROI to France to ROI / NI much to the rage of the unionists.
Morning everyone. I wonder what fresh hell today will bring?
The crucial Wednesday Covid numbers.
Either "peak" delight confirmed or the depth of despair of ever increasing cases.
ZOE ap stopped falling in the last few days. Maybe because of the footy, maybe an indicator of a plateau to come, rather than a scottish style reduction in cases.
Which would still see a hung parliament on the UK Survation numbers and PM Starmer propped up by the SNP and LDs, the SDLP, PC, Alliance and Greens despite another Tory majority in England.
The DUP would not support the Tories again unless they removed the Irish Sea border
Err… yes. Thanks. Hate to be a pain, but I repeat my question:
Scottish figures are largely irrelevant to the UK total unless the SCons take the lead as the SNP will prop up Labour anyway, so your Scottish subsample demand is also largely irrelevant.
However the Scottish figures are SNP 39%, Tories 22%, Labour 19%, Greens 5%, LDs 4%
Nope. Now you’re answering a question I did not ask. I know it’s terribly old-fashioned, but could you give a straight answer to a straight question? Please inform us where you got the figures you pumped in to Martin Baxter’s ElectoralCalculus calculator:
For unless the Scottish Conservatives take the lead in Scotland whether the SNP lead or SLab lead it makes no difference, their MPs will both make Starmer PM
Nope, you are still obfuscating. The link you provided does not contain the numbers you yourself pumped into Baxter’s calculator.
Please inform us where you got the figures you entered in to the ElectoralCalculus calculator:
Nope Nats like you have got to realise not all polls revolve around you, I have now given you both the UK and Scottish Survation figures both of which would make Starmer PM with minor parties support, exactly as the 2019 Scottish numbers would.
You are Labour's little helpers at Westminster so obviously we don't give a toss precisely how many little Nationalists there are at Westminster as you will all be making Starmer PM anyway. Unless the SCons make significant gains in Scotland, Scottish figures are therefore irrelevant for UK elections
BritNats like you have got to realise that folk can see through all your huffing and puffing. Behind the bravado you’re shitting it.
Everybody can clearly see how you are allocating figures to the Scottish parties, so it is you that is clearly obsessed with Scottish electoral behaviour.
Fascinatingly, you are predicting the following Unionist losses:
SNP gains from SCon: Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine Dumfries and Galloway (Alister Jack, Secretary of State for Scotland) Moray (Douglas Ross, Leader of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party)
SNP gains from SLD: Caithness Sutherland and Easter Ross Edinburgh West North East Fife Orkney and Shetland (Alistair Carmichael, former Secretary of State for Scotland)
As I also posted the actual Scottish figures show your pathetic party down to just 39% from the 45% you got in 2019.
However it matters not a jot, the little Nationalists would still have the numbers to prop up Starmer with the LDs and other minor parties in a hung parliament.
As long as we Tories are in power we can and will refuse indyref2 and as Union matters are reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998 there is sod all you can do about it.
If Starmer gets in however and needs your support to get in power and offers you indyref2 and devomax that is his affair not ours
I mean its your affair too as you’ll have to live with the consequence of the breakup of our country but I know your short-termism doesn't look that far ahead.
It would be disappointing of course but if Starmer gave in to the SNP because he needed their support to stay PM in a hung parliament and gave them a legal indyref2 and lost, even after offering Scots devomax then he would immediately lose power.
As soon as Scottish MPs left the Commons after a Scexit vote we Tories would return to power without an election as we would still have a majority in England, Wales and NI alone. We would then shift to an English Nationalist agenda and take as hard a line as possible with the SNP in Scexit talks. We would also dominate English politics for a further generation.
Labour meanwhile having lost Scotland would be utterly screwed. Only 5 times since 1945 have Labour won a majority without Scottish MPs, in 1945, 1966, 1997, 2001 and 2005 and most of those were under Blair
I'm far from sure that such policies would be as enduringly popular as you blithely assume.
If there was an indyref2 and the Scottish Nationalists won then English voters would immediately demand as hard a negotiation line as possible with the SNP and Scottish government in Scexit talks and no concessions whatsoever to the SNP.
Exactly the same as European voters demanded the EU take as hard a line as possible with the Tories and UK government after the Brexit vote.
London would have to take as hard a line as possible with Edinburgh as Brussels took with London in the Brexit talks or be replaced by a government that would.
Chairman of M&S explaining that Brexit means lorries to the EU (or NI) now carry 700 pages of forms for inspection and delays of 24-48 hours at borders mean some perishable goods are being destroyed. The new paperwork is employing a team of 13 people.
I had a box of perishable goods turn up 2 months late. We assumed it had been confiscated by customs and then suddenly gets spat out for delivery. "There are customs fees and charges to pay" said the courier.
Erm no, because 1. The box needs to be destroyed now 2. The box was 1 of 2 in a consignment and 3. the other box got through without charge because the products inside are zero tariff and zero import VAT as shown on the paperwork
It is a lottery. Our customer has seen it take 4 attempts to get properly certified properly written up chilled products across the border in time to be edible. We're largely giving up on chilled as the supply chain just isn't reliable. Which is why for NI the supply route has quickly swung from UK to NI / ROI to France to ROI / NI much to the rage of the unionists.
This is all because of BoJo's rubbish Brexit deal
Or more specifically the fact that Bojo and others didn't understand the reason you don't want paperwork isn't actually the paperwork, it's the risk and delays that come with paperwork.
And as @RochdalePioneers points out most loads are mixed loads (with multiple bits of paperwork) because Northern Ireland isn't big enough to need a whole load.
The 3 certificates for meat in a sandwich does seem a bit excessive but hey that's the rules Bojo agreed to. Clearly, without anyone in industry reading them first.
Morning everyone. I wonder what fresh hell today will bring?
The crucial Wednesday Covid numbers.
Either "peak" delight confirmed or the depth of despair of ever increasing cases.
Why would increasing cases cause "despair"?
I for one forecast continuing increase in cases this week. In England the Schools were still open last week so plague monkeys will have been spreading germs around at school, as they tend to do.
What was the EU's objection to the "Trusted Trader" scheme? It's not like M&S Sandwiches are difficult to identify....
The scheme wasn't designed to be a mass waiver so that all products from all suppliers get included. Which is what would have to happen for it to be the solution being touted.
If you are a supplier big enough with customer demand large enough to supply products by the full vehicle this is easy. Sadly few are - it is the mixed loads that are the problem, and almost all of the loads for supermarket goods are mixed.
By mixed I mean hundreds or thousands of different products. Each needing its own ream of paperwork at our government's insistence. If we were happy to accept the status quo - that our standards are their standards because we wrote their standards - then we could make all of this go away.
Why the GOP Made a Mistake Killing Off Biden’s IRS Plan
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/07/20/actually-republicans-should-get-behind-bidens-irs-plan-500208 ...The point of Biden’s plan wasn’t to boost audits but to close the “tax gap” — the amount of taxes currently owed but not paid. We know firsthand that it’s a gigantic number — in 2019 alone it totaled $574 billion, and it’s estimated to reach $7 trillion over the next 10 years. In perspective, that’s equal to the amount of federal income taxes that the bottom 90 percent of individual earners pay in federal taxes on an annual basis.
...Here’s an amazing stat: Workers who get a W-2 pay 99 percent of the taxes they owe. It’s those who funnel income through financial vehicles the IRS doesn’t or can’t monitor who pay as little as 50 percent of what they owe. The tax gap has grown because an increasing number of filers, particularly upper earners, do not receive W-2s or other forms that report their income. This is fundamentally unfair and unsustainable.
Biden’s idea for strengthening the IRS wasn’t to add audits, but to improve technology — which is a smart use of federal money to bring in revenue. When we were at the IRS, audits were pretty much the only tool we had to find most of that missing income. But it was and is an inefficient tool. While there is an essential role for audits, they bring in less than 0.5 percent of IRS revenue, and 20 to 40 percent of audits produce nothing.
The main reason the tax system works when it does is that taxpayers, knowing that they and the IRS have the same information about their income, simply pay what they owe. So the best way to do that for wealthy tax-avoiders is to enhance the reporting of sources of income that aren’t currently collected by the IRS....
What was the EU's objection to the "Trusted Trader" scheme? It's not like M&S Sandwiches are difficult to identify....
The scheme wasn't designed to be a mass waiver so that all products from all suppliers get included. Which is what would have to happen for it to be the solution being touted.
If you are a supplier big enough with customer demand large enough to supply products by the full vehicle this is easy. Sadly few are - it is the mixed loads that are the problem, and almost all of the loads for supermarket goods are mixed.
By mixed I mean hundreds or thousands of different products. Each needing its own ream of paperwork at our government's insistence. If we were happy to accept the status quo - that our standards are their standards because we wrote their standards - then we could make all of this go away.
The whole point about Trusted Traders is it should be all products, from all suppliers.
The Trusted Trader should be self-declaring and paying what duties are due, just as we self-declare and pay all sorts of other taxes. If they are found to be committing fraud, they get a hefty fine and lose Trusted Trader status.
Why the GOP Made a Mistake Killing Off Biden’s IRS Plan
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/07/20/actually-republicans-should-get-behind-bidens-irs-plan-500208 ...The point of Biden’s plan wasn’t to boost audits but to close the “tax gap” — the amount of taxes currently owed but not paid. We know firsthand that it’s a gigantic number — in 2019 alone it totaled $574 billion, and it’s estimated to reach $7 trillion over the next 10 years. In perspective, that’s equal to the amount of federal income taxes that the bottom 90 percent of individual earners pay in federal taxes on an annual basis.
...Here’s an amazing stat: Workers who get a W-2 pay 99 percent of the taxes they owe. It’s those who funnel income through financial vehicles the IRS doesn’t or can’t monitor who pay as little as 50 percent of what they owe. The tax gap has grown because an increasing number of filers, particularly upper earners, do not receive W-2s or other forms that report their income. This is fundamentally unfair and unsustainable.
Biden’s idea for strengthening the IRS wasn’t to add audits, but to improve technology — which is a smart use of federal money to bring in revenue. When we were at the IRS, audits were pretty much the only tool we had to find most of that missing income. But it was and is an inefficient tool. While there is an essential role for audits, they bring in less than 0.5 percent of IRS revenue, and 20 to 40 percent of audits produce nothing.
The main reason the tax system works when it does is that taxpayers, knowing that they and the IRS have the same information about their income, simply pay what they owe. So the best way to do that for wealthy tax-avoiders is to enhance the reporting of sources of income that aren’t currently collected by the IRS....
Doesn't that fail in the assumption that GOP politicians want wealthy tax-avoiders to get caught? 😕
Morning everyone. I wonder what fresh hell today will bring?
The crucial Wednesday Covid numbers.
Either "peak" delight confirmed or the depth of despair of ever increasing cases.
That delight will be pretty short lived. The true summer peak of cases will be double today's numbers. As I've said many times, there's no alternative options but I don't think there's any mileage in ignoring the current conditions that will lead to huge numbers in the next three to five weeks. All we can hope for is that the threat of vaccine passports has made 2m under 30s get their vaccines.
Even if you could sort out social care in terms of more money who exactly is going to be doing the caring . Unless you increase foreign workers which this cesspit government won’t do where are these carers going to come from .
As pay rises more people will be willing to do it. Before you parrot the bullcrap about english people won't do it remember 83% of people doing it are already english. What your lot always means is that english people won't do it for minimum wage
The biggest competitor for care homes are supermarkets which offer more predictable hours, less physically demanding work and the same pay
Besides which, the employees don't form attachments to their favourite boxes of cereal and then have to watch, powerless, whilst most of them die all at once of a hideous plague.
So we come back to the same old problem: decent care demands more investment, the elderly will benefit from the investment but, owing to the composition of the electorate, if that's going to happen then the young will be expected to cover the entire cost.
And which is why Italy and Japan are fucked, and why we need to be very careful not to follow them down the rabbit hole.
As far as I can see, deal with the problem one of three ways:
1. Import a continuous flow of young people from elsewhere (but that just kicks the can down the road - they will all get old eventually - whilst exacerbating the tremendous housing problem) 2. Alter patterns of retirement and encourage/persuade/force people to work until they are much older (through a combination of measures such as phasing in the payment of the state pension and encouraging part-time working for older employees) 3. Borrow more, tax more, borrow more, tax more, until the economy collapses (hopefully on someone else's watch)
No prizes for guessing which way the Government is likely to jump.
Imagine a situation where everyone had 2.1 kids, and life expectancy was static.
In that circumstance, the state is in a good state. The ratio of workers to retirees is stable.
Now imagine that the birth rate has dropped to 1. Now, every generation, there are half as many kids as parents. That's big trouble that is the pensions and healthcare of the retirees is paid by the workers. And that ratio is now looking uglier every generation. (And such a scenario encourages emigration too... Who wants to hang around and hand over all their paycheck to support oldies, further worsening the dependency ratio.)
Oh, but it gets worse. People are still living longer. So there are ever more retirees being supported by a smaller number of people of writing age.
This is why our productivity issues are so important. If the average output of a worker is increasing by 2% a year then it will double over their working lives meaning that the unfavourable movement in the ratio of employees to retired are offset. Unfortunately, that has not been the case for some time making us ever more dependent on changing the ratio by immigration.
Looking after old people is low productivity. Staff-retiree ratios are basically fixed. And the number of people requiring residential care is increasing.
If only we could have a grown up conversation about how to pay for it.
There's plenty of low productivity growth sectors in the economy.
The problem is for every one of them having effectively zero it requires the extra productivity to be made up by another sector.
What was the EU's objection to the "Trusted Trader" scheme? It's not like M&S Sandwiches are difficult to identify....
The scheme wasn't designed to be a mass waiver so that all products from all suppliers get included. Which is what would have to happen for it to be the solution being touted.
If you are a supplier big enough with customer demand large enough to supply products by the full vehicle this is easy. Sadly few are - it is the mixed loads that are the problem, and almost all of the loads for supermarket goods are mixed.
By mixed I mean hundreds or thousands of different products. Each needing its own ream of paperwork at our government's insistence. If we were happy to accept the status quo - that our standards are their standards because we wrote their standards - then we could make all of this go away.
The whole point about Trusted Traders is it should be all products, from all suppliers.
The Trusted Trader should be self-declaring and paying what duties are due, just as we self-declare and pay all sorts of other taxes. If they are found to be committing fraud, they get a hefty fine and lose Trusted Trader status.
What was the EU's objection to the "Trusted Trader" scheme? It's not like M&S Sandwiches are difficult to identify....
The scheme wasn't designed to be a mass waiver so that all products from all suppliers get included. Which is what would have to happen for it to be the solution being touted.
If you are a supplier big enough with customer demand large enough to supply products by the full vehicle this is easy. Sadly few are - it is the mixed loads that are the problem, and almost all of the loads for supermarket goods are mixed.
By mixed I mean hundreds or thousands of different products. Each needing its own ream of paperwork at our government's insistence. If we were happy to accept the status quo - that our standards are their standards because we wrote their standards - then we could make all of this go away.
The whole point about Trusted Traders is it should be all products, from all suppliers.
The Trusted Trader should be self-declaring and paying what duties are due, just as we self-declare and pay all sorts of other taxes. If they are found to be committing fraud, they get a hefty fine and lose Trusted Trader status.
The EU doesn't work like that.
Which is the nature of the beast of making a compromise.
If you're only sticking to the rules that pre-existed that are how you normally work, then there is no compromise.
Tonight we are seeing a little of the possible vulnerability of Boris' Tory Party. There are certain problems not soluble by three word slogans, nor by expelling everyone who takes a different view, nor by simply declaring the issue solved. Some take nuance, balance, long-term planning and compromise. The electorate needs to be prepared for that with blunt explanation of why this must be, not simply telling them what they want to hear.
Rip up the HRA Shoot the Immigrants Make Space
I have a better plan. As no country seems willing to be our offshore centre, we need to seize control of some islands, thousands of miles from these shores. The asylum seekers could be shipped there by boat, perhaps from Bristol. In order to keep them busy while incarcerated we could get them to grow and harvest sugar and other commodities, which could be shipped here on the return voyage.
We could name this the the Royal African Company, and erect statues of those who came up with the scheme.
You are arguing we should reward those that break the law?
The trouble with people like you foxy is you are quick to say we should not do that. Not so quick to actually come up with what do we do apart from the common lefty chant "Let them all in"
I haven't argued to let them all in, and I challenge you to find a post in my 25 000 that advocated that. You won't find one.
Do you agree the current situation is unworkable? If so how would you propose to solve it. Bearing in mind the only rl solution that seems to work is the australian one of placing boat people on a remote island
I would intern all arrivals in camps in the UK, with legal and related services to assess their claims, and onsite courts. I would settle cases within months by investing in the legal system, and even with appeals it should be possible to decide all cases in six months.
Successful cases would get Leave to Remain for a set time, perhaps five years, followed by a review. Their LTR could be withdrawn early for criminal activity or inciting violence etc. After 5 years they would need to prove that their home country remained unsafe before being renewed.
Unsuccessful cases would remain in the internment camps until deported. Countries that refused to take back deported would face withdrawal of aid, or economic sanctions.
I would balance the stick with the carrot of aid programmes to assist countries with large numbers of local refugees such as Lebanon, and an active policy to promote peace and reduce the civil conflict that drives refugees, again via the aid budget.
And people who have destroyed their papers?
The same problem as we have now. They would stay interned until identified.
I would also regard proof of identity as a core part of establishing a successful asylum claim.
And what is the philosophical issue with doing interning offshore rather than onshore?
The provision of legal and health services is more difficult.
The practical issue is that no country is willing to be our offshore centre. We could institute internment camps domestically much more quickly.
I suspect that arrivals of bogus cases would drop promptly, so the camps may not need to be that extensive.
There are practical challenges for sure, but this Danish set up with Rwanda appears interesting
Which would still see a hung parliament on the UK Survation numbers and PM Starmer propped up by the SNP and LDs, the SDLP, PC, Alliance and Greens despite another Tory majority in England.
The DUP would not support the Tories again unless they removed the Irish Sea border
Err… yes. Thanks. Hate to be a pain, but I repeat my question:
Scottish figures are largely irrelevant to the UK total unless the SCons take the lead as the SNP will prop up Labour anyway, so your Scottish subsample demand is also largely irrelevant.
However the Scottish figures are SNP 39%, Tories 22%, Labour 19%, Greens 5%, LDs 4%
Nope. Now you’re answering a question I did not ask. I know it’s terribly old-fashioned, but could you give a straight answer to a straight question? Please inform us where you got the figures you pumped in to Martin Baxter’s ElectoralCalculus calculator:
For unless the Scottish Conservatives take the lead in Scotland whether the SNP lead or SLab lead it makes no difference, their MPs will both make Starmer PM
Nope, you are still obfuscating. The link you provided does not contain the numbers you yourself pumped into Baxter’s calculator.
Please inform us where you got the figures you entered in to the ElectoralCalculus calculator:
Nope Nats like you have got to realise not all polls revolve around you, I have now given you both the UK and Scottish Survation figures both of which would make Starmer PM with minor parties support, exactly as the 2019 Scottish numbers would.
You are Labour's little helpers at Westminster so obviously we don't give a toss precisely how many little Nationalists there are at Westminster as you will all be making Starmer PM anyway. Unless the SCons make significant gains in Scotland, Scottish figures are therefore irrelevant for UK elections
BritNats like you have got to realise that folk can see through all your huffing and puffing. Behind the bravado you’re shitting it.
Everybody can clearly see how you are allocating figures to the Scottish parties, so it is you that is clearly obsessed with Scottish electoral behaviour.
Fascinatingly, you are predicting the following Unionist losses:
SNP gains from SCon: Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine Dumfries and Galloway (Alister Jack, Secretary of State for Scotland) Moray (Douglas Ross, Leader of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party)
SNP gains from SLD: Caithness Sutherland and Easter Ross Edinburgh West North East Fife Orkney and Shetland (Alistair Carmichael, former Secretary of State for Scotland)
As I also posted the actual Scottish figures show your pathetic party down to just 39% from the 45% you got in 2019.
However it matters not a jot, the little Nationalists would still have the numbers to prop up Starmer with the LDs and other minor parties in a hung parliament.
As long as we Tories are in power we can and will refuse indyref2 and as Union matters are reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998 there is sod all you can do about it.
If Starmer gets in however and needs your support to get in power and offers you indyref2 and devomax that is his affair not ours
I mean its your affair too as you’ll have to live with the consequence of the breakup of our country but I know your short-termism doesn't look that far ahead.
It would be disappointing of course but if Starmer gave in to the SNP because he needed their support to stay PM in a hung parliament and gave them a legal indyref2 and lost, even after offering Scots devomax then he would immediately lose power.
As soon as Scottish MPs left the Commons after a Scexit vote we Tories would return to power without an election as we would have a majority in England, Wales and NI alone. We would then shift to an English Nationalist agenda and take as hard a line as possible with the SNP in Scexit talks. We would also dominate English politics for a further generation.
Labour meanwhile having lost Scotland would be utterly screwed. Only 3 times since 1945 have Labour won a majority without Scottish MPs, in 1945, 1966, 1997, 2001 and 2005 and most of those were under Blair
Nah, wouldn’t happen. He’d pass a bill moving from FPTP to a more proportionate system in the hope of retaining power,and he’d dissolve parliament.
And it would be appropriate for Scottish MPs to vote on that?
Stupid stupid comic! As if they aren't losing enough readers. Interesting that Marcus uses his title. I'd have thought he wouldn't or at least he'd have taken advice and would decide to stay humble.
Chairman of M&S explaining that Brexit means lorries to the EU (or NI) now carry 700 pages of forms for inspection and delays of 24-48 hours at borders mean some perishable goods are being destroyed. The new paperwork is employing a team of 13 people.
I had a box of perishable goods turn up 2 months late. We assumed it had been confiscated by customs and then suddenly gets spat out for delivery. "There are customs fees and charges to pay" said the courier.
Erm no, because 1. The box needs to be destroyed now 2. The box was 1 of 2 in a consignment and 3. the other box got through without charge because the products inside are zero tariff and zero import VAT as shown on the paperwork
It is a lottery. Our customer has seen it take 4 attempts to get properly certified properly written up chilled products across the border in time to be edible. We're largely giving up on chilled as the supply chain just isn't reliable. Which is why for NI the supply route has quickly swung from UK to NI / ROI to France to ROI / NI much to the rage of the unionists.
This is all because of BoJo's rubbish Brexit deal
Once we got a deal there were two fundamental flaws: 1. They don't know how trade works. We laughed at Raab's "I had no idea of the importance of Dover - Calais" but it seems to be the entire negotiating team. 2. The insistence that slogans and headlines matter more than details. Nothing that is happening is new news, a hidden unknown unknown that has come out of the blue. They could have checked what the deal was going to mean in practice but we've had enough of experts and fuck business.
We have only got off as lightly as we have because we have unilaterally decided not to put into practice large chunks of the deal we demanded be included. There's no massive queues at customs because we don't have the inspection facilities nor the officers nor the computer systems to do the checks we demanded, so we've given up.
So we have all of the pain that comes with the "we are BRITAIN we will make the rules" elements despite the reality that we have already given up with divergence from the rules. I think that not having a functioning border is what happens when you Take Back Control of the border.
Which would still see a hung parliament on the UK Survation numbers and PM Starmer propped up by the SNP and LDs, the SDLP, PC, Alliance and Greens despite another Tory majority in England.
The DUP would not support the Tories again unless they removed the Irish Sea border
Err… yes. Thanks. Hate to be a pain, but I repeat my question:
Scottish figures are largely irrelevant to the UK total unless the SCons take the lead as the SNP will prop up Labour anyway, so your Scottish subsample demand is also largely irrelevant.
However the Scottish figures are SNP 39%, Tories 22%, Labour 19%, Greens 5%, LDs 4%
Nope. Now you’re answering a question I did not ask. I know it’s terribly old-fashioned, but could you give a straight answer to a straight question? Please inform us where you got the figures you pumped in to Martin Baxter’s ElectoralCalculus calculator:
For unless the Scottish Conservatives take the lead in Scotland whether the SNP lead or SLab lead it makes no difference, their MPs will both make Starmer PM
Nope, you are still obfuscating. The link you provided does not contain the numbers you yourself pumped into Baxter’s calculator.
Please inform us where you got the figures you entered in to the ElectoralCalculus calculator:
Nope Nats like you have got to realise not all polls revolve around you, I have now given you both the UK and Scottish Survation figures both of which would make Starmer PM with minor parties support, exactly as the 2019 Scottish numbers would.
You are Labour's little helpers at Westminster so obviously we don't give a toss precisely how many little Nationalists there are at Westminster as you will all be making Starmer PM anyway. Unless the SCons make significant gains in Scotland, Scottish figures are therefore irrelevant for UK elections
BritNats like you have got to realise that folk can see through all your huffing and puffing. Behind the bravado you’re shitting it.
Everybody can clearly see how you are allocating figures to the Scottish parties, so it is you that is clearly obsessed with Scottish electoral behaviour.
Fascinatingly, you are predicting the following Unionist losses:
SNP gains from SCon: Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine Dumfries and Galloway (Alister Jack, Secretary of State for Scotland) Moray (Douglas Ross, Leader of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party)
SNP gains from SLD: Caithness Sutherland and Easter Ross Edinburgh West North East Fife Orkney and Shetland (Alistair Carmichael, former Secretary of State for Scotland)
As I also posted the actual Scottish figures show your pathetic party down to just 39% from the 45% you got in 2019.
However it matters not a jot, the little Nationalists would still have the numbers to prop up Starmer with the LDs and other minor parties in a hung parliament.
As long as we Tories are in power we can and will refuse indyref2 and as Union matters are reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998 there is sod all you can do about it.
If Starmer gets in however and needs your support to get in power and offers you indyref2 and devomax that is his affair not ours
I mean its your affair too as you’ll have to live with the consequence of the breakup of our country but I know your short-termism doesn't look that far ahead.
It would be disappointing of course but if Starmer gave in to the SNP because he needed their support to stay PM in a hung parliament and gave them a legal indyref2 and lost, even after offering Scots devomax then he would immediately lose power.
As soon as Scottish MPs left the Commons after a Scexit vote we Tories would return to power without an election as we would still have a majority in England, Wales and NI alone. We would then shift to an English Nationalist agenda and take as hard a line as possible with the SNP in Scexit talks. We would also dominate English politics for a further generation.
Labour meanwhile having lost Scotland would be utterly screwed. Only 5 times since 1945 have Labour won a majority without Scottish MPs, in 1945, 1966, 1997, 2001 and 2005 and most of those were under Blair
I'm far from sure that such policies would be as enduringly popular as you blithely assume.
If there was an indyref2 and the Scottish Nationalists won then English voters would immediately demand as hard a negotiation line as possible with the SNP and Scottish government in Scexit talks and no concessions whatsoever to the SNP.
Exactly the same as European voters demanded the EU take as hard a line as possible with the Tories and UK government after the Brexit vote.
London would have to take as hard a line as possible with Edinburgh as Brussels took with London in the Brexit talks or be replaced by a government that would.
What was the EU's objection to the "Trusted Trader" scheme? It's not like M&S Sandwiches are difficult to identify....
The scheme wasn't designed to be a mass waiver so that all products from all suppliers get included. Which is what would have to happen for it to be the solution being touted.
If you are a supplier big enough with customer demand large enough to supply products by the full vehicle this is easy. Sadly few are - it is the mixed loads that are the problem, and almost all of the loads for supermarket goods are mixed.
By mixed I mean hundreds or thousands of different products. Each needing its own ream of paperwork at our government's insistence. If we were happy to accept the status quo - that our standards are their standards because we wrote their standards - then we could make all of this go away.
The whole point about Trusted Traders is it should be all products, from all suppliers.
The Trusted Trader should be self-declaring and paying what duties are due, just as we self-declare and pay all sorts of other taxes. If they are found to be committing fraud, they get a hefty fine and lose Trusted Trader status.
Wow, £6bn increase in the debt interest bill compared to last year. Completely offsets the savings in the furlough scheme winding down. Without that additional interest bill the PSF figures actually don't look so bad. All of the numbers heading in the right direction at least, other than debt interest.
It looks as though we're on course for an annual deficit of around £130bn, maybe less if there's no autumn/winter disruption.
Which would still see a hung parliament on the UK Survation numbers and PM Starmer propped up by the SNP and LDs, the SDLP, PC, Alliance and Greens despite another Tory majority in England.
The DUP would not support the Tories again unless they removed the Irish Sea border
Err… yes. Thanks. Hate to be a pain, but I repeat my question:
Scottish figures are largely irrelevant to the UK total unless the SCons take the lead as the SNP will prop up Labour anyway, so your Scottish subsample demand is also largely irrelevant.
However the Scottish figures are SNP 39%, Tories 22%, Labour 19%, Greens 5%, LDs 4%
Nope. Now you’re answering a question I did not ask. I know it’s terribly old-fashioned, but could you give a straight answer to a straight question? Please inform us where you got the figures you pumped in to Martin Baxter’s ElectoralCalculus calculator:
For unless the Scottish Conservatives take the lead in Scotland whether the SNP lead or SLab lead it makes no difference, their MPs will both make Starmer PM
Nope, you are still obfuscating. The link you provided does not contain the numbers you yourself pumped into Baxter’s calculator.
Please inform us where you got the figures you entered in to the ElectoralCalculus calculator:
Nope Nats like you have got to realise not all polls revolve around you, I have now given you both the UK and Scottish Survation figures both of which would make Starmer PM with minor parties support, exactly as the 2019 Scottish numbers would.
You are Labour's little helpers at Westminster so obviously we don't give a toss precisely how many little Nationalists there are at Westminster as you will all be making Starmer PM anyway. Unless the SCons make significant gains in Scotland, Scottish figures are therefore irrelevant for UK elections
BritNats like you have got to realise that folk can see through all your huffing and puffing. Behind the bravado you’re shitting it.
Everybody can clearly see how you are allocating figures to the Scottish parties, so it is you that is clearly obsessed with Scottish electoral behaviour.
Fascinatingly, you are predicting the following Unionist losses:
SNP gains from SCon: Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine Dumfries and Galloway (Alister Jack, Secretary of State for Scotland) Moray (Douglas Ross, Leader of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party)
SNP gains from SLD: Caithness Sutherland and Easter Ross Edinburgh West North East Fife Orkney and Shetland (Alistair Carmichael, former Secretary of State for Scotland)
As I also posted the actual Scottish figures show your pathetic party down to just 39% from the 45% you got in 2019.
However it matters not a jot, the little Nationalists would still have the numbers to prop up Starmer with the LDs and other minor parties in a hung parliament.
As long as we Tories are in power we can and will refuse indyref2 and as Union matters are reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998 there is sod all you can do about it.
If Starmer gets in however and needs your support to get in power and offers you indyref2 and devomax that is his affair not ours
I mean its your affair too as you’ll have to live with the consequence of the breakup of our country but I know your short-termism doesn't look that far ahead.
It would be disappointing of course but if Starmer gave in to the SNP because he needed their support to stay PM in a hung parliament and gave them a legal indyref2 and lost, even after offering Scots devomax then he would immediately lose power.
As soon as Scottish MPs left the Commons after a Scexit vote we Tories would return to power without an election as we would have a majority in England, Wales and NI alone. We would then shift to an English Nationalist agenda and take as hard a line as possible with the SNP in Scexit talks. We would also dominate English politics for a further generation.
Labour meanwhile having lost Scotland would be utterly screwed. Only 3 times since 1945 have Labour won a majority without Scottish MPs, in 1945, 1966, 1997, 2001 and 2005 and most of those were under Blair
Nah, wouldn’t happen. He’d pass a bill moving from FPTP to a more proportionate system in the hope of retaining power,and he’d dissolve parliament.
And it would be appropriate for Scottish MPs to vote on that?
Interesting that Labour's Lisa Nandy on Sky is having a go at Dominic Cummings for his "misogyny" in his attacking Carrie Johnson, and not using Cummings interview to have a go at the Tories. The only criticism she had for Boris Johnson was how on earth he allowed Cummings anywhere near power.
Interesting. Doesn't look like Cummings is winning any friends even on a "my enemies enemy is my friend" basis.
What was the EU's objection to the "Trusted Trader" scheme? It's not like M&S Sandwiches are difficult to identify....
The scheme wasn't designed to be a mass waiver so that all products from all suppliers get included. Which is what would have to happen for it to be the solution being touted.
If you are a supplier big enough with customer demand large enough to supply products by the full vehicle this is easy. Sadly few are - it is the mixed loads that are the problem, and almost all of the loads for supermarket goods are mixed.
By mixed I mean hundreds or thousands of different products. Each needing its own ream of paperwork at our government's insistence. If we were happy to accept the status quo - that our standards are their standards because we wrote their standards - then we could make all of this go away.
The whole point about Trusted Traders is it should be all products, from all suppliers.
The Trusted Trader should be self-declaring and paying what duties are due, just as we self-declare and pay all sorts of other taxes. If they are found to be committing fraud, they get a hefty fine and lose Trusted Trader status.
Morning everyone. I wonder what fresh hell today will bring?
The crucial Wednesday Covid numbers.
Either "peak" delight confirmed or the depth of despair of ever increasing cases.
That delight will be pretty short lived. The true summer peak of cases will be double today's numbers. As I've said many times, there's no alternative options but I don't think there's any mileage in ignoring the current conditions that will lead to huge numbers in the next three to five weeks. All we can hope for is that the threat of vaccine passports has made 2m under 30s get their vaccines.
Tonight we are seeing a little of the possible vulnerability of Boris' Tory Party. There are certain problems not soluble by three word slogans, nor by expelling everyone who takes a different view, nor by simply declaring the issue solved. Some take nuance, balance, long-term planning and compromise. The electorate needs to be prepared for that with blunt explanation of why this must be, not simply telling them what they want to hear.
Rip up the HRA Shoot the Immigrants Make Space
I have a better plan. As no country seems willing to be our offshore centre, we need to seize control of some islands, thousands of miles from these shores. The asylum seekers could be shipped there by boat, perhaps from Bristol. In order to keep them busy while incarcerated we could get them to grow and harvest sugar and other commodities, which could be shipped here on the return voyage.
We could name this the the Royal African Company, and erect statues of those who came up with the scheme.
You are arguing we should reward those that break the law?
The trouble with people like you foxy is you are quick to say we should not do that. Not so quick to actually come up with what do we do apart from the common lefty chant "Let them all in"
I haven't argued to let them all in, and I challenge you to find a post in my 25 000 that advocated that. You won't find one.
Do you agree the current situation is unworkable? If so how would you propose to solve it. Bearing in mind the only rl solution that seems to work is the australian one of placing boat people on a remote island
I would intern all arrivals in camps in the UK, with legal and related services to assess their claims, and onsite courts. I would settle cases within months by investing in the legal system, and even with appeals it should be possible to decide all cases in six months.
Successful cases would get Leave to Remain for a set time, perhaps five years, followed by a review. Their LTR could be withdrawn early for criminal activity or inciting violence etc. After 5 years they would need to prove that their home country remained unsafe before being renewed.
Unsuccessful cases would remain in the internment camps until deported. Countries that refused to take back deported would face withdrawal of aid, or economic sanctions.
I would balance the stick with the carrot of aid programmes to assist countries with large numbers of local refugees such as Lebanon, and an active policy to promote peace and reduce the civil conflict that drives refugees, again via the aid budget.
And people who have destroyed their papers?
The same problem as we have now. They would stay interned until identified.
I would also regard proof of identity as a core part of establishing a successful asylum claim.
And what is the philosophical issue with doing interning offshore rather than onshore?
The provision of legal and health services is more difficult.
The practical issue is that no country is willing to be our offshore centre. We could institute internment camps domestically much more quickly.
I suspect that arrivals of bogus cases would drop promptly, so the camps may not need to be that extensive.
Isn't this an example of a false dichotomy?
There's no reason why we cannot both:
(a) improve the funding (and speed) of immigration assessment in the UK while (b) choosing to process those who come via unconventional routes (i.e. seaborne from France) off-shore
I agree. I just don't think any country is willing to be our offshore internment camp.
Investment in legal services is much needed in this country, not just in asylum law. Things go far too slowly.
My mother has fed in an interesting solution
One of the delays is caused by people cynically demanding trial by jury
She has suggested that the threshold at which this is allowed is increased from 6m to 12m imprisonment (anything below is handled by 3 magistrates). Would materially reduce the number of minor cases in the Crown courts
Anyway, having read up on the overnight refugees thread, it is simply the case that some posters and a chunk of voters don't care where these forrin go or whether they live or die as long as they are Somebody Else's Problem.
They're all sponging forrin, here to take all the jobs AND take benefits, so lets just send them somewhere else forrin. Anywhere else. Doesn't matter as they're never going to come here. And think about what a brilliant country we would have if the only people here and breeding were those who could show they were pure bred Anglo-Saxon - no migrant stock there at all...
Surely the solution is to build a wall in the channel? These boats won't be able to cross the channel if there's a ruddy great wall in it.
Comments
I love how the tory cheerleaders on here are desperately trying to cling on to their last vestiges of evidence, usually citing opinion polls taken during the football euphoria.
Johnson's approval ratings are sliding because with every passing day more people come to realise that he's an incompetent idiot.
We are in an utter mess right now in almost every direction you look.
If Farage did launch a party to oppose the tories on the grounds of the latter's utter incompetence that really will be the end of the Conservatives.
The Alf Garnett voters who basically don't like brown and black people arriving on our shores and who voted for Boris to stop them will be seething under their Costa del Sol parasols.
This isn't a problem of Brexit, but of an ageing population and an unwillingness to discuss how to pay for care of the elderly (see May, T).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-57903624.amp
So we come back to the same old problem: decent care demands more investment, the elderly will benefit from the investment but, owing to the composition of the electorate, if that's going to happen then the young will be expected to cover the entire cost.
'There is currently no button on the UK's Passenger Locator Form (PFL) to declare that you are exempt from self-isolation because you are fully double vaccinated and coming from an amber country,' writes Arlidge.
'If you tell the truth on the locator form and say you are exempt and tick the ‘Government / Assembly Approved’ reason – which is the only option that makes any sense – you cannot use the E-gates.'
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/travel-covid-news-holidays-vaccine-passports-amber-plus-list/
1. Import a continuous flow of young people from elsewhere (but that just kicks the can down the road - they will all get old eventually - whilst exacerbating the tremendous housing problem)
2. Alter patterns of retirement and encourage/persuade/force people to work until they are much older (through a combination of measures such as phasing in the payment of the state pension and encouraging part-time working for older employees)
3. Borrow more, tax more, borrow more, tax more, until the economy collapses (hopefully on someone else's watch)
No prizes for guessing which way the Government is likely to jump.
What does he know...
One of our PB supermarket trade and shipping experts will be along in a moment to explain why he is wrong.
Chilean Taekwondo athlete Fernanda Aguirre tested positive on arrival in Tokyo and will have to quarantine for at least 10 days, meaning she will miss her competition.
https://twitter.com/coch_cl/status/1417320070695596041
Though if you think about the differences in economies, state capacity, and demographics, it’s not super hard to see why that might be the case.
I am asking him what that comment brings to the debate. This is a discussion forum. It is not unreasonable to ask what is behind that point or what it adds to,the debate.
In that circumstance, the state is in a good state. The ratio of workers to retirees is stable.
Now imagine that the birth rate has dropped to 1. Now, every generation, there are half as many kids as parents. That's big trouble that is the pensions and healthcare of the retirees is paid by the workers. And that ratio is now looking uglier every generation. (And such a scenario encourages emigration too... Who wants to hang around and hand over all their paycheck to support oldies, further worsening the dependency ratio.)
Oh, but it gets worse. People are still living longer. So there are ever more retirees being supported by a smaller number of people of writing age.
If only we could have a grown up conversation about how to pay for it.
I would also regard proof of identity as a core part of establishing a successful asylum claim.
She was completely delightful. I just thought I should mention that.
Great scenario for a remake of 'Being There'. Johnson's tailor made for Chance the Gardener
https://twitter.com/MarcusRashford/status/1417560450393329666?s=20
As soon as Scottish MPs left the Commons after a Scexit vote we Tories would return to power without an election as we would still have a majority in England, Wales and NI alone. We would then shift to an English Nationalist agenda and take as hard a line as possible with the SNP in Scexit talks. We would also dominate English politics for a further generation.
Labour meanwhile having lost Scotland would be utterly screwed. Only 5 times since 1945 have Labour won a majority without Scottish MPs, in 1945, 1966, 1997, 2001 and 2005 and most of those were under Blair
https://news.sky.com/story/we-will-end-up-with-even-more-chaos-govt-warned-immigration-bill-will-make-asylum-issue-worse-12360196
The practical issue is that no country is willing to be our offshore centre. We could institute internment camps domestically much more quickly.
I suspect that arrivals of bogus cases would drop promptly, so the camps may not need to be that extensive.
That said it looks like Florida cases are absolutely exploding. Florida has about 25% of all US cases.
There's no reason why we cannot both:
(a) improve the funding (and speed) of immigration assessment in the UK
while
(b) choosing to process those who come via unconventional routes (i.e. seaborne from France) off-shore
Either "peak" delight confirmed or the depth of despair of ever increasing cases.
https://twitter.com/BBCRichardM/status/1417714468004536322?s=20
What was the EU's objection to the "Trusted Trader" scheme? It's not like M&S Sandwiches are difficult to identify....
Mr. Jonathan, so long as the benefits system requires neither a longstanding residency nor contributions it'll be a huge draw.
There would then also be a hard border and customs posts from Berwick to Carlisle
Investment in legal services is much needed in this country, not just in asylum law. Things go far too slowly.
Sturgeon hopes as a result he becomes even less popular with the rest of Scots. But none of this manoeuvering gets Scotland out of the Groundhog Day of Yes/No, nor comes to a truly settled view on the future, to which a substantial majority assent.
One elephant in the room is independence itself. Sturgeon’s government talks endlessly about a referendum, but never about the practicalities of separation.
https://www.politics.co.uk/comment/2021/07/19/the-open-secret-in-scottish-politics/
No wonder she's angry.
!!!
Being beamed into a lot of Blue Wall seats.
I see my Essex neighbour, although he's far, far away politically, HYUFD has started on his daily duties. I have to wonder what good he is doing for the Tory Party.
Meanwhile it’s a bright sunny morning again here, after the thunderstorms of last night.
Had a u3a interest group in our garden yesterday afternoon, before the rain, where we were entertained with a short display by a red kite and a longer one by some swifts.
And later Mrs C & I were cheered by the last minute England victory in the cricket.
“The slow vaccine uptake has been blamed on the government's failure to secure Pfizer supplies and public fears about very rare clotting from the AstraZeneca jab.”
https://twitter.com/fact_covid/status/1417738052882124801?s=20
Erm no, because
1. The box needs to be destroyed now
2. The box was 1 of 2 in a consignment and
3. the other box got through without charge because the products inside are zero tariff and zero import VAT as shown on the paperwork
It is a lottery. Our customer has seen it take 4 attempts to get properly certified properly written up chilled products across the border in time to be edible. We're largely giving up on chilled as the supply chain just isn't reliable. Which is why for NI the supply route has quickly swung from UK to NI / ROI to France to ROI / NI much to the rage of the unionists.
The Commission’s draft mandate fails to respect essential elements of the framework, does not reflect a real-world solution, and cannot form a basis for negotiations.
https://twitter.com/DominicRaab/status/1417525490328522756?s=20
Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said:
The UK, with Gibraltar, and Spain carefully agreed a pragmatic Framework Agreement, in full consultation with the EU Commission. The Commission’s proposed mandate, published today, directly conflicts with that Framework. It seeks to undermine the UK’s sovereignty over Gibraltar, and cannot form a basis for negotiations.
We have consistently showed pragmatism and flexibility in the search for arrangements that work for all sides, and we are disappointed that this has not been reciprocated. We urge the EU to think again.
Exactly the same as European voters demanded the EU take as hard a line as possible with the Tories and UK government after the Brexit vote.
London would have to take as hard a line as possible with Edinburgh as Brussels took with London in the Brexit talks or be replaced by a government that would.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57899239 explains it well - 1 incorrect form within 700 documents and the whole lot can be rejected.
And as @RochdalePioneers points out most loads are mixed loads (with multiple bits of paperwork) because Northern Ireland isn't big enough to need a whole load.
The 3 certificates for meat in a sandwich does seem a bit excessive but hey that's the rules Bojo agreed to. Clearly, without anyone in industry reading them first.
I for one forecast continuing increase in cases this week. In England the Schools were still open last week so plague monkeys will have been spreading germs around at school, as they tend to do.
If you are a supplier big enough with customer demand large enough to supply products by the full vehicle this is easy. Sadly few are - it is the mixed loads that are the problem, and almost all of the loads for supermarket goods are mixed.
By mixed I mean hundreds or thousands of different products. Each needing its own ream of paperwork at our government's insistence. If we were happy to accept the status quo - that our standards are their standards because we wrote their standards - then we could make all of this go away.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/07/20/actually-republicans-should-get-behind-bidens-irs-plan-500208
...The point of Biden’s plan wasn’t to boost audits but to close the “tax gap” — the amount of taxes currently owed but not paid. We know firsthand that it’s a gigantic number — in 2019 alone it totaled $574 billion, and it’s estimated to reach $7 trillion over the next 10 years. In perspective, that’s equal to the amount of federal income taxes that the bottom 90 percent of individual earners pay in federal taxes on an annual basis.
...Here’s an amazing stat: Workers who get a W-2 pay 99 percent of the taxes they owe. It’s those who funnel income through financial vehicles the IRS doesn’t or can’t monitor who pay as little as 50 percent of what they owe. The tax gap has grown because an increasing number of filers, particularly upper earners, do not receive W-2s or other forms that report their income. This is fundamentally unfair and unsustainable.
Biden’s idea for strengthening the IRS wasn’t to add audits, but to improve technology — which is a smart use of federal money to bring in revenue. When we were at the IRS, audits were pretty much the only tool we had to find most of that missing income. But it was and is an inefficient tool. While there is an essential role for audits, they bring in less than 0.5 percent of IRS revenue, and 20 to 40 percent of audits produce nothing.
The main reason the tax system works when it does is that taxpayers, knowing that they and the IRS have the same information about their income, simply pay what they owe. So the best way to do that for wealthy tax-avoiders is to enhance the reporting of sources of income that aren’t currently collected by the IRS....
The Trusted Trader should be self-declaring and paying what duties are due, just as we self-declare and pay all sorts of other taxes. If they are found to be committing fraud, they get a hefty fine and lose Trusted Trader status.
What is your current information on vaccine supplies?
Is there a summary, anywhere - especially about Pfizer? I do not have a current view.
The problem is for every one of them having effectively zero it requires the extra productivity to be made up by another sector.
If you're only sticking to the rules that pre-existed that are how you normally work, then there is no compromise.
But then he also told us the pubs would not be opened.
1. They don't know how trade works. We laughed at Raab's "I had no idea of the importance of Dover - Calais" but it seems to be the entire negotiating team.
2. The insistence that slogans and headlines matter more than details. Nothing that is happening is new news, a hidden unknown unknown that has come out of the blue. They could have checked what the deal was going to mean in practice but we've had enough of experts and fuck business.
We have only got off as lightly as we have because we have unilaterally decided not to put into practice large chunks of the deal we demanded be included. There's no massive queues at customs because we don't have the inspection facilities nor the officers nor the computer systems to do the checks we demanded, so we've given up.
So we have all of the pain that comes with the "we are BRITAIN we will make the rules" elements despite the reality that we have already given up with divergence from the rules. I think that not having a functioning border is what happens when you Take Back Control of the border.
It looks as though we're on course for an annual deficit of around £130bn, maybe less if there's no autumn/winter disruption.
Interesting. Doesn't look like Cummings is winning any friends even on a "my enemies enemy is my friend" basis.
One of the delays is caused by people cynically demanding trial by jury
She has suggested that the threshold at which this is allowed is increased from 6m to 12m imprisonment (anything below is handled by 3 magistrates). Would materially reduce the number of minor cases in the Crown courts
They're all sponging forrin, here to take all the jobs AND take benefits, so lets just send them somewhere else forrin. Anywhere else. Doesn't matter as they're never going to come here. And think about what a brilliant country we would have if the only people here and breeding were those who could show they were pure bred Anglo-Saxon - no migrant stock there at all...
Surely the solution is to build a wall in the channel? These boats won't be able to cross the channel if there's a ruddy great wall in it.