That was something else my dad said which stuck with me a bit - any older person who isn't against this is a person without a conscience and has no empathy for the following generations. It matches up with my experience of posters in favour and against this policy on PB. He was ashamed of his own generation's selfishness tonight, he knows they've had it good with property prices being what they were when they were buying their houses in the 70s and 80s.
Well I am under 40 and disagree.
Yes here in the South housing is more expensive than it has been but I also know I will inherit far more than my parents or grandparents did too. So it works both ways
Phew. That's OK, then.
I don't but if anyone could convince me a 100% inheritance tax would be a good thing, its HYUFD.
People should be able to get on through their own efforts, not rely upon the inheritance from others.
I'm very comfortable with the inheritance thang; less so with self-proclaimed libertarians starting sentences "People should..."
What is wrong with a libertarian saying "People should be able to ..."
As a general phrase that's pretty much the fundamental principle of libertarianism - that people should be able to [insert here]. As opposed to saying they should have to, or should not be able to, saying they should be able to makes it their own choice.
Although (pedant mode) I guess with a 100% inheritance tax they wouldn't be able to choose to rely on an inheritance.
Of course and as I said I don't support that, but HYUFD makes it very tempting to support it. 😉
A 100% inheritance tax would turn the South to Labour, there is no way those on average incomes in London and the South East can afford to buy without an inheritance from parents or grandparents now.
So most would be renters without assets within a generation and reliant on a strong state unless a Tory government got in and reversed it before then
At which point, they might suddenly discover that the problem is the planning system / greenbelt, and vote to abolish it.
If the South ever gets below 50% home ownership, it becomes in most voters interest to demolish the planning system, build like crazy and crash the price of housing.
One of the interesting things about the economics of housing is that being so essential, it's very price sensitive to supply and demand. Ten people fighting over nine houses will result in the richest nine all putting at least more the maximum amount that the tenth man can afford. Ten people fighting over ten houses - whoever is willing to take the crummiest one pays nearly nothing, then it just comes down to the margin people will pay for the nicer ones. You only have to build one extra house to get from one of these scenarios to the other. I wonder how many extra houses it would take to collapse house prices in the SE back to the value of the agricultural land plus the building costs. Maybe a million - possibly half that, especially if it was obvious that anyone who wanted to pay the minimum could just buy a lump of farmland and build on it.
You've touched upon a very important point.
The wealth of Brits is tied up in their properties. If you collapse the housing price, you destroy the savings of millions of people. They will increase their savings rate to compensate (see Spain 2011).
It's a very fine line the government needs to walk.
You say that like its a bad thing. Our savings rate has been too long for a long time and is why we've run a long-term unsustainable structural trade deficit is it not?
Plus most people will never cash out their "savings" on their house, so its a faux saving anyway which completely warps and distorts both our economics and our politics.
A house is first and foremost somewhere to live. Making it harder for people to live, or harder for people to move about going where the job opportunities are etc just diminishes the economy.
And if people didn't think that they had a windfall lined up in a property inheritance then maybe we could have more sensible discussions about these things. The notion that some have that they need an inheritance, to pay for a house, because house prices are high, so therefore we need to keep prices high, so they can get their inheritance . . . is a rather circular and flawed logic. If house prices come down, you could get the house without an inheritance - and you'd no longer "need" that inheritance.
PS the one catastrophic thing with collapsing house prices is if you get negative equity, which is why we need inflation to mask the fall in prices so people don't get negative equity.
Spot on again. You are making a disturbing habit of this.
Apart from the bit about inflation. Philip never writes the explanation as to why rising prices is good for home owners (that interest rates will never go up and that pay will go up too). I think it’s brave to assume that pay would go up, though I think it’s safe to say interest rates will never go above 1.0% ever again.
"I think it’s safe to say interest rates will never go above 1.0% ever again."
I'm happy to offer you pretty good odds on that.
The "ever again" was hyperbole, but in what circumstances do you envisage the BoE putting up rates above 0.75%?
I started work in May 2009. In my working life the base rate has never been above 0.75%. We had serious inflation in 2011 (my commuting costs increased by 40%), and the BoE did nothing. The reality is, there are a lot of people with big mortgages who simply could not afford to pay them if the base rate goes much above 1%.
I think the only circumstances in which the BoE acts is if there is a run on the pound.
I paid 12% on my first mortgage in the nineties. Those were the negative equity days of hangover after the Thatcher House price boom.
I paid 19% on my first mortgage, shortly after Thatcher became PM.
Yes, I remember my dad being very squeezed at the same time.
There was much more inflation though, and the principle from the Seventies to the Noughties was to buy the most expensive house possible, pay eye watering mortgages and let inflation reduce the mortgage to affordable levels after a number of years. It worked to a fashion for both me and my dad.
Nowadays there are eye-watering mortgages, but no inflation to reduce the debt, so they stay eye watering.
When we bought our current house the mortgage was right on the edge of affordability and we really struggled towards the end of each month but within a few years some modest inflation and increased nominal earnings made it very affordable and we were able to start paying down the capital. My daughter has been determined to overpay her mortgage and reduce the debt too but it has been so much harder for her with the very slow increases in nominal wages.
The more I think about the more angry I am about the amount of tax young people are paying.
And I find lots of young people really annoying, particularly their narcissism, veganism and off-the-scale Wokeness - but it's still totally wrong and they don't deserve it.
How many young people do you know? I think of my kids and their mates, as well as the under-40s I work with, and I don’t recognise your description of them. Mostly they are just trying to make their way in a world created by and run for people much older than them.
Lots. I manage many in my job and come across them in my day-to-day life.
You don't recognise my description because you're a Lefty and you agree with things like radical ecosocialism and Wokeness so don't even register it.
What are the tells of being into radical ecosocialism and wokeness as it has manifested itself in your office over the past few months by those young people?
That was something else my dad said which stuck with me a bit - any older person who isn't against this is a person without a conscience and has no empathy for the following generations. It matches up with my experience of posters in favour and against this policy on PB. He was ashamed of his own generation's selfishness tonight, he knows they've had it good with property prices being what they were when they were buying their houses in the 70s and 80s.
Well I am under 40 and disagree.
Yes here in the South housing is more expensive than it has been but I also know I will inherit far more than my parents or grandparents did too. So it works both ways
Phew. That's OK, then.
I don't but if anyone could convince me a 100% inheritance tax would be a good thing, its HYUFD.
People should be able to get on through their own efforts, not rely upon the inheritance from others.
I'm very comfortable with the inheritance thang; less so with self-proclaimed libertarians starting sentences "People should..."
What is wrong with a libertarian saying "People should be able to ..."
As a general phrase that's pretty much the fundamental principle of libertarianism - that people should be able to [insert here]. As opposed to saying they should have to, or should not be able to, saying they should be able to makes it their own choice.
Although (pedant mode) I guess with a 100% inheritance tax they wouldn't be able to choose to rely on an inheritance.
Of course and as I said I don't support that, but HYUFD makes it very tempting to support it. 😉
A 100% inheritance tax would turn the South to Labour, there is no way those on average incomes in London and the South East can afford to buy without an inheritance from parents or grandparents now.
So most would be renters without assets within a generation and reliant on a strong state unless a Tory government got in and reversed it before then
At which point, they might suddenly discover that the problem is the planning system / greenbelt, and vote to abolish it.
If the South ever gets below 50% home ownership, it becomes in most voters interest to demolish the planning system, build like crazy and crash the price of housing.
One of the interesting things about the economics of housing is that being so essential, it's very price sensitive to supply and demand. Ten people fighting over nine houses will result in the richest nine all putting at least more the maximum amount that the tenth man can afford. Ten people fighting over ten houses - whoever is willing to take the crummiest one pays nearly nothing, then it just comes down to the margin people will pay for the nicer ones. You only have to build one extra house to get from one of these scenarios to the other. I wonder how many extra houses it would take to collapse house prices in the SE back to the value of the agricultural land plus the building costs. Maybe a million - possibly half that, especially if it was obvious that anyone who wanted to pay the minimum could just buy a lump of farmland and build on it.
You've touched upon a very important point.
The wealth of Brits is tied up in their properties. If you collapse the housing price, you destroy the savings of millions of people. They will increase their savings rate to compensate (see Spain 2011).
It's a very fine line the government needs to walk.
You say that like its a bad thing. Our savings rate has been too long for a long time and is why we've run a long-term unsustainable structural trade deficit is it not?
Plus most people will never cash out their "savings" on their house, so its a faux saving anyway which completely warps and distorts both our economics and our politics.
A house is first and foremost somewhere to live. Making it harder for people to live, or harder for people to move about going where the job opportunities are etc just diminishes the economy.
And if people didn't think that they had a windfall lined up in a property inheritance then maybe we could have more sensible discussions about these things. The notion that some have that they need an inheritance, to pay for a house, because house prices are high, so therefore we need to keep prices high, so they can get their inheritance . . . is a rather circular and flawed logic. If house prices come down, you could get the house without an inheritance - and you'd no longer "need" that inheritance.
PS the one catastrophic thing with collapsing house prices is if you get negative equity, which is why we need inflation to mask the fall in prices so people don't get negative equity.
Spot on again. You are making a disturbing habit of this.
Apart from the bit about inflation. Philip never writes the explanation as to why rising prices is good for home owners (that interest rates will never go up and that pay will go up too). I think it’s brave to assume that pay would go up, though I think it’s safe to say interest rates will never go above 1.0% ever again.
"I think it’s safe to say interest rates will never go above 1.0% ever again."
I'm happy to offer you pretty good odds on that.
The "ever again" was hyperbole, but in what circumstances do you envisage the BoE putting up rates above 0.75%?
I started work in May 2009. In my working life the base rate has never been above 0.75%. We had serious inflation in 2011 (my commuting costs increased by 40%), and the BoE did nothing. The reality is, there are a lot of people with big mortgages who simply could not afford to pay them if the base rate goes much above 1%.
I think the only circumstances in which the BoE acts is if there is a run on the pound.
I paid 12% on my first mortgage in the nineties. Those were the negative equity days of hangover after the Thatcher House price boom.
I paid 19% on my first mortgage, shortly after Thatcher became PM.
yet yesterday there was so much chat on here of how easy life had been for todays pensioners, they never had to struggle to pay for their property, it was basicaklly given to them without the need for hard work and sacrifice so of course the state should take it away from them.
The place I bought with the 19% mortgage had rising damp, woodworm, along with no ceilings or windows, dangerous rubber wiring and no plumbing. It took us 3 years graft to make it habitable whilst otherwise working full-time and holding down extra jobs to raise the necessary funds. Great fun, but not easy.
Border Force authorised to turn back migrants, 50 years of Genesis and Radacando! Another day in Normalania.
Will there now be a race between BF vessels and the RNLI to reach the boat people?
I should imagine that the Border Force boats will patrol the maritime boundary to try to catch the dinghies, the occupants of the dinghies will throw themselves into the water (or just fall in when the authorities try to shunt or tow their pathetic, flimsy vessels back towards France,) and the Border Force officers will then be obliged to fish them out.
Any that get through the screen will then be met by RNLI welcome committees instead. So, it'll make no difference to anything. Just one more example of something-must-be-done-ism.
Its stupid and dangerous to be messing around with people in the water. Anyone in the water should be removed from the water.
The only sustainable way to deal with it is to determine what happens next once they're out of the water. If they know they'll end up in the UK, people will continue doing it, risking more lives on a very dangerous and deadly crossing.
If they know that they'll end up in somewhere like Nauru or Papua New Guinea as has been done by the Australian Labor and Liberal governments, or Rwanda as has been proposed by Denmark's Social Democrat government, then that would actually stop the dinghies getting in the water in the first place.
The solution is to do a deal with France where we and they intercept them all and land them back on French beaches. They will then never try again.
The quid pro quo for France is less "pull" for them into the Calais area, lots of money to help them out, and border force and RN boats in the Med to help them out in turn - it needs someone who can really flatter, understand and build strong relationships with the huffy and proud French.
That's clearly not Patel.
I am still curious about the number of people who have died crossing the channel in this manner. Yet no one else seems interested.
if it is zero, then they are incredible seamen - we should follow my idea to press them into the Royal Navy.
If it is 10-20% then they are doing as well as the RN estimates for the "natural wastage" for Sea Lion.
Small, over crowded boats, in the tides and currents of the Channel. Add ships the size of office blocks charging around......
Not that many because if hundreds were drowning there would be plenty of bodies washing up.massive amounts of maritime traffic and surveillance make it one the best places in the world to survive if you go in the oggin.
Border Force authorised to turn back migrants, 50 years of Genesis and Radacando! Another day in Normalania.
Will there now be a race between BF vessels and the RNLI to reach the boat people?
I should imagine that the Border Force boats will patrol the maritime boundary to try to catch the dinghies, the occupants of the dinghies will throw themselves into the water (or just fall in when the authorities try to shunt or tow their pathetic, flimsy vessels back towards France,) and the Border Force officers will then be obliged to fish them out.
Any that get through the screen will then be met by RNLI welcome committees instead. So, it'll make no difference to anything. Just one more example of something-must-be-done-ism.
Its stupid and dangerous to be messing around with people in the water. Anyone in the water should be removed from the water.
The only sustainable way to deal with it is to determine what happens next once they're out of the water. If they know they'll end up in the UK, people will continue doing it, risking more lives on a very dangerous and deadly crossing.
If they know that they'll end up in somewhere like Nauru or Papua New Guinea as has been done by the Australian Labor and Liberal governments, or Rwanda as has been proposed by Denmark's Social Democrat government, then that would actually stop the dinghies getting in the water in the first place.
Yes, but as I understand it neither PNG nor Rwanda are willing.
If Rwanda are willing would you be happy for the UK to follow Denmark's Social Democrat government in doing that?
Why Rwanda? Why not Ramsgate?
What would the function be? To determine whether they have a legitimate claim to be in the UK.
Yes? Stay. No? Whatever the protocol is.
Where this processing happens shouldn't worry you.
No, the proposal is to allow asylum-seekers the chance of a new life in Rwanda, paid for by the British government.
Because they’re fleeing persecution, rather than trying to become economic migrants, right?
Border Force authorised to turn back migrants, 50 years of Genesis and Radacando! Another day in Normalania.
Will there now be a race between BF vessels and the RNLI to reach the boat people?
I should imagine that the Border Force boats will patrol the maritime boundary to try to catch the dinghies, the occupants of the dinghies will throw themselves into the water (or just fall in when the authorities try to shunt or tow their pathetic, flimsy vessels back towards France,) and the Border Force officers will then be obliged to fish them out.
Any that get through the screen will then be met by RNLI welcome committees instead. So, it'll make no difference to anything. Just one more example of something-must-be-done-ism.
Its stupid and dangerous to be messing around with people in the water. Anyone in the water should be removed from the water.
The only sustainable way to deal with it is to determine what happens next once they're out of the water. If they know they'll end up in the UK, people will continue doing it, risking more lives on a very dangerous and deadly crossing.
If they know that they'll end up in somewhere like Nauru or Papua New Guinea as has been done by the Australian Labor and Liberal governments, or Rwanda as has been proposed by Denmark's Social Democrat government, then that would actually stop the dinghies getting in the water in the first place.
The solution is to do a deal with France where we and they intercept them all and land them back on French beaches. They will then never try again.
The quid pro quo for France is less "pull" for them into the Calais area, lots of money to help them out, and border force and RN boats in the Med to help them out in turn - it needs someone who can really flatter, understand and build strong relationships with the huffy and proud French.
That's clearly not Patel.
I am still curious about the number of people who have died crossing the channel in this manner. Yet no one else seems interested.
if it is zero, then they are incredible seamen - we should follow my idea to press them into the Royal Navy.
If it is 10-20% then they are doing as well as the RN estimates for the "natural wastage" for Sea Lion.
Small, over crowded boats, in the tides and currents of the Channel. Add ships the size of office blocks charging around......
Not that many because if hundreds were drowning there would be plenty of bodies washing up.massive amounts of maritime traffic and surveillance make it one the best places in the world to survive if you go in the oggin.
I have a very hard time believing in a casualty rate of zero.
If it is zero then we need to conscript them into the Navy immediately. They would be geniuses in small boats....
The Patel headline grabber is no more than that - and one timed for the end of the crossing season. Obviously, in practice it will make very little difference - we don’t have enough patrol boats for a start - so what happens then?
That was something else my dad said which stuck with me a bit - any older person who isn't against this is a person without a conscience and has no empathy for the following generations. It matches up with my experience of posters in favour and against this policy on PB. He was ashamed of his own generation's selfishness tonight, he knows they've had it good with property prices being what they were when they were buying their houses in the 70s and 80s.
Well I am under 40 and disagree.
Yes here in the South housing is more expensive than it has been but I also know I will inherit far more than my parents or grandparents did too. So it works both ways
Phew. That's OK, then.
I don't but if anyone could convince me a 100% inheritance tax would be a good thing, its HYUFD.
People should be able to get on through their own efforts, not rely upon the inheritance from others.
I'm very comfortable with the inheritance thang; less so with self-proclaimed libertarians starting sentences "People should..."
What is wrong with a libertarian saying "People should be able to ..."
As a general phrase that's pretty much the fundamental principle of libertarianism - that people should be able to [insert here]. As opposed to saying they should have to, or should not be able to, saying they should be able to makes it their own choice.
Although (pedant mode) I guess with a 100% inheritance tax they wouldn't be able to choose to rely on an inheritance.
Of course and as I said I don't support that, but HYUFD makes it very tempting to support it. 😉
A 100% inheritance tax would turn the South to Labour, there is no way those on average incomes in London and the South East can afford to buy without an inheritance from parents or grandparents now.
So most would be renters without assets within a generation and reliant on a strong state unless a Tory government got in and reversed it before then
At which point, they might suddenly discover that the problem is the planning system / greenbelt, and vote to abolish it.
If the South ever gets below 50% home ownership, it becomes in most voters interest to demolish the planning system, build like crazy and crash the price of housing.
One of the interesting things about the economics of housing is that being so essential, it's very price sensitive to supply and demand. Ten people fighting over nine houses will result in the richest nine all putting at least more the maximum amount that the tenth man can afford. Ten people fighting over ten houses - whoever is willing to take the crummiest one pays nearly nothing, then it just comes down to the margin people will pay for the nicer ones. You only have to build one extra house to get from one of these scenarios to the other. I wonder how many extra houses it would take to collapse house prices in the SE back to the value of the agricultural land plus the building costs. Maybe a million - possibly half that, especially if it was obvious that anyone who wanted to pay the minimum could just buy a lump of farmland and build on it.
You've touched upon a very important point.
The wealth of Brits is tied up in their properties. If you collapse the housing price, you destroy the savings of millions of people. They will increase their savings rate to compensate (see Spain 2011).
It's a very fine line the government needs to walk.
You say that like its a bad thing. Our savings rate has been too long for a long time and is why we've run a long-term unsustainable structural trade deficit is it not?
Plus most people will never cash out their "savings" on their house, so its a faux saving anyway which completely warps and distorts both our economics and our politics.
A house is first and foremost somewhere to live. Making it harder for people to live, or harder for people to move about going where the job opportunities are etc just diminishes the economy.
And if people didn't think that they had a windfall lined up in a property inheritance then maybe we could have more sensible discussions about these things. The notion that some have that they need an inheritance, to pay for a house, because house prices are high, so therefore we need to keep prices high, so they can get their inheritance . . . is a rather circular and flawed logic. If house prices come down, you could get the house without an inheritance - and you'd no longer "need" that inheritance.
PS the one catastrophic thing with collapsing house prices is if you get negative equity, which is why we need inflation to mask the fall in prices so people don't get negative equity.
Spot on again. You are making a disturbing habit of this.
Apart from the bit about inflation. Philip never writes the explanation as to why rising prices is good for home owners (that interest rates will never go up and that pay will go up too). I think it’s brave to assume that pay would go up, though I think it’s safe to say interest rates will never go above 1.0% ever again.
"I think it’s safe to say interest rates will never go above 1.0% ever again."
I'm happy to offer you pretty good odds on that.
The "ever again" was hyperbole, but in what circumstances do you envisage the BoE putting up rates above 0.75%?
I started work in May 2009. In my working life the base rate has never been above 0.75%. We had serious inflation in 2011 (my commuting costs increased by 40%), and the BoE did nothing. The reality is, there are a lot of people with big mortgages who simply could not afford to pay them if the base rate goes much above 1%.
I think the only circumstances in which the BoE acts is if there is a run on the pound.
I paid 12% on my first mortgage in the nineties. Those were the negative equity days of hangover after the Thatcher House price boom.
I paid 19% on my first mortgage, shortly after Thatcher became PM.
yet yesterday there was so much chat on here of how easy life had been for todays pensioners, they never had to struggle to pay for their property, it was basicaklly given to them without the need for hard work and sacrifice so of course the state should take it away from them.
Oh boo hoo. Will nobody think of the pensioners!?
You will be a pensioner one day, so you've been screwed too, unless a future government decides to uprate pensions for the missed 2021 triple lock. I wouldn't count on that.
There will be no pensions, no social care, and no triple lock by the time I’m a pensioner mate. The drawbridge will undoubtedly have been long pulled up.
Dilnot on LBC. "Structurally, quite a lot" of his plan has been implemented. But not generous enough with the proposed funding and we have no idea how much money will actually be forthcoming. As he points out we have been here before (in 2014 pushed through by the LibDems) and then had it pulled by the Tories.
That was something else my dad said which stuck with me a bit - any older person who isn't against this is a person without a conscience and has no empathy for the following generations. It matches up with my experience of posters in favour and against this policy on PB. He was ashamed of his own generation's selfishness tonight, he knows they've had it good with property prices being what they were when they were buying their houses in the 70s and 80s.
Well I am under 40 and disagree.
Yes here in the South housing is more expensive than it has been but I also know I will inherit far more than my parents or grandparents did too. So it works both ways
Phew. That's OK, then.
I don't but if anyone could convince me a 100% inheritance tax would be a good thing, its HYUFD.
People should be able to get on through their own efforts, not rely upon the inheritance from others.
I'm very comfortable with the inheritance thang; less so with self-proclaimed libertarians starting sentences "People should..."
What is wrong with a libertarian saying "People should be able to ..."
As a general phrase that's pretty much the fundamental principle of libertarianism - that people should be able to [insert here]. As opposed to saying they should have to, or should not be able to, saying they should be able to makes it their own choice.
Although (pedant mode) I guess with a 100% inheritance tax they wouldn't be able to choose to rely on an inheritance.
Of course and as I said I don't support that, but HYUFD makes it very tempting to support it. 😉
A 100% inheritance tax would turn the South to Labour, there is no way those on average incomes in London and the South East can afford to buy without an inheritance from parents or grandparents now.
So most would be renters without assets within a generation and reliant on a strong state unless a Tory government got in and reversed it before then
At which point, they might suddenly discover that the problem is the planning system / greenbelt, and vote to abolish it.
If the South ever gets below 50% home ownership, it becomes in most voters interest to demolish the planning system, build like crazy and crash the price of housing.
One of the interesting things about the economics of housing is that being so essential, it's very price sensitive to supply and demand. Ten people fighting over nine houses will result in the richest nine all putting at least more the maximum amount that the tenth man can afford. Ten people fighting over ten houses - whoever is willing to take the crummiest one pays nearly nothing, then it just comes down to the margin people will pay for the nicer ones. You only have to build one extra house to get from one of these scenarios to the other. I wonder how many extra houses it would take to collapse house prices in the SE back to the value of the agricultural land plus the building costs. Maybe a million - possibly half that, especially if it was obvious that anyone who wanted to pay the minimum could just buy a lump of farmland and build on it.
You've touched upon a very important point.
The wealth of Brits is tied up in their properties. If you collapse the housing price, you destroy the savings of millions of people. They will increase their savings rate to compensate (see Spain 2011).
It's a very fine line the government needs to walk.
You say that like its a bad thing. Our savings rate has been too long for a long time and is why we've run a long-term unsustainable structural trade deficit is it not?
Plus most people will never cash out their "savings" on their house, so its a faux saving anyway which completely warps and distorts both our economics and our politics.
A house is first and foremost somewhere to live. Making it harder for people to live, or harder for people to move about going where the job opportunities are etc just diminishes the economy.
And if people didn't think that they had a windfall lined up in a property inheritance then maybe we could have more sensible discussions about these things. The notion that some have that they need an inheritance, to pay for a house, because house prices are high, so therefore we need to keep prices high, so they can get their inheritance . . . is a rather circular and flawed logic. If house prices come down, you could get the house without an inheritance - and you'd no longer "need" that inheritance.
PS the one catastrophic thing with collapsing house prices is if you get negative equity, which is why we need inflation to mask the fall in prices so people don't get negative equity.
Spot on again. You are making a disturbing habit of this.
Apart from the bit about inflation. Philip never writes the explanation as to why rising prices is good for home owners (that interest rates will never go up and that pay will go up too). I think it’s brave to assume that pay would go up, though I think it’s safe to say interest rates will never go above 1.0% ever again.
"I think it’s safe to say interest rates will never go above 1.0% ever again."
I'm happy to offer you pretty good odds on that.
The "ever again" was hyperbole, but in what circumstances do you envisage the BoE putting up rates above 0.75%?
I started work in May 2009. In my working life the base rate has never been above 0.75%. We had serious inflation in 2011 (my commuting costs increased by 40%), and the BoE did nothing. The reality is, there are a lot of people with big mortgages who simply could not afford to pay them if the base rate goes much above 1%.
I think the only circumstances in which the BoE acts is if there is a run on the pound.
I paid 12% on my first mortgage in the nineties. Those were the negative equity days of hangover after the Thatcher House price boom.
I paid 19% on my first mortgage, shortly after Thatcher became PM.
yet yesterday there was so much chat on here of how easy life had been for todays pensioners, they never had to struggle to pay for their property, it was basicaklly given to them without the need for hard work and sacrifice so of course the state should take it away from them.
The place I bought with the 19% mortgage had rising damp, woodworm, along with no ceilings or windows, dangerous rubber wiring and no plumbing. It took us 3 years graft to make it habitable whilst otherwise working full-time and holding down extra jobs to raise the necessary funds. Great fun, but not easy.
My parents bought the family home in 1981. 3 bed semi, badly converted into 2 flats. Pretty much un-inhabitable. We all camped in one room, as they renovated each room in turn, in a series of phases. First phase was making it basically habitable. Then more work to make it better. Finally, when they had saved some more money, actually getting things done the way they wanted. This happened over about a decade. So a fair chunk of my childhood was growing up *in* a part building site. I did some of the work with my brother, when we were old enough....
240 volts has a taste. Quite different to 50 volts.
Border Force authorised to turn back migrants, 50 years of Genesis and Radacando! Another day in Normalania.
Will there now be a race between BF vessels and the RNLI to reach the boat people?
I should imagine that the Border Force boats will patrol the maritime boundary to try to catch the dinghies, the occupants of the dinghies will throw themselves into the water (or just fall in when the authorities try to shunt or tow their pathetic, flimsy vessels back towards France,) and the Border Force officers will then be obliged to fish them out.
Any that get through the screen will then be met by RNLI welcome committees instead. So, it'll make no difference to anything. Just one more example of something-must-be-done-ism.
Its stupid and dangerous to be messing around with people in the water. Anyone in the water should be removed from the water.
The only sustainable way to deal with it is to determine what happens next once they're out of the water. If they know they'll end up in the UK, people will continue doing it, risking more lives on a very dangerous and deadly crossing.
If they know that they'll end up in somewhere like Nauru or Papua New Guinea as has been done by the Australian Labor and Liberal governments, or Rwanda as has been proposed by Denmark's Social Democrat government, then that would actually stop the dinghies getting in the water in the first place.
The solution is to do a deal with France where we and they intercept them all and land them back on French beaches. They will then never try again.
The quid pro quo for France is less "pull" for them into the Calais area, lots of money to help them out, and border force and RN boats in the Med to help them out in turn - it needs someone who can really flatter, understand and build strong relationships with the huffy and proud French.
That's clearly not Patel.
I am still curious about the number of people who have died crossing the channel in this manner. Yet no one else seems interested.
if it is zero, then they are incredible seamen - we should follow my idea to press them into the Royal Navy.
If it is 10-20% then they are doing as well as the RN estimates for the "natural wastage" for Sea Lion.
Small, over crowded boats, in the tides and currents of the Channel. Add ships the size of office blocks charging around......
Not that many because if hundreds were drowning there would be plenty of bodies washing up.massive amounts of maritime traffic and surveillance make it one the best places in the world to survive if you go in the oggin.
I have a very hard time believing in a casualty rate of zero.
If it is zero then we need to conscript them into the Navy immediately. They would be geniuses in small boats....
It's not zero coz bodies have fetched up in Belgium, Norway, etc but it's not hundreds either.
Border Force authorised to turn back migrants, 50 years of Genesis and Radacando! Another day in Normalania.
Will there now be a race between BF vessels and the RNLI to reach the boat people?
I should imagine that the Border Force boats will patrol the maritime boundary to try to catch the dinghies, the occupants of the dinghies will throw themselves into the water (or just fall in when the authorities try to shunt or tow their pathetic, flimsy vessels back towards France,) and the Border Force officers will then be obliged to fish them out.
Any that get through the screen will then be met by RNLI welcome committees instead. So, it'll make no difference to anything. Just one more example of something-must-be-done-ism.
Its stupid and dangerous to be messing around with people in the water. Anyone in the water should be removed from the water.
The only sustainable way to deal with it is to determine what happens next once they're out of the water. If they know they'll end up in the UK, people will continue doing it, risking more lives on a very dangerous and deadly crossing.
If they know that they'll end up in somewhere like Nauru or Papua New Guinea as has been done by the Australian Labor and Liberal governments, or Rwanda as has been proposed by Denmark's Social Democrat government, then that would actually stop the dinghies getting in the water in the first place.
The solution is to do a deal with France where we and they intercept them all and land them back on French beaches. They will then never try again.
The quid pro quo for France is less "pull" for them into the Calais area, lots of money to help them out, and border force and RN boats in the Med to help them out in turn - it needs someone who can really flatter, understand and build strong relationships with the huffy and proud French.
That's clearly not Patel.
I am still curious about the number of people who have died crossing the channel in this manner. Yet no one else seems interested.
if it is zero, then they are incredible seamen - we should follow my idea to press them into the Royal Navy.
If it is 10-20% then they are doing as well as the RN estimates for the "natural wastage" for Sea Lion.
Small, over crowded boats, in the tides and currents of the Channel. Add ships the size of office blocks charging around......
Not that many because if hundreds were drowning there would be plenty of bodies washing up.massive amounts of maritime traffic and surveillance make it one the best places in the world to survive if you go in the oggin.
I have a very hard time believing in a casualty rate of zero.
If it is zero then we need to conscript them into the Navy immediately. They would be geniuses in small boats....
It's not zero coz bodies have fetched up in Belgium, Norway, etc but it's not hundreds either.
Border Force authorised to turn back migrants, 50 years of Genesis and Radacando! Another day in Normalania.
Will there now be a race between BF vessels and the RNLI to reach the boat people?
I should imagine that the Border Force boats will patrol the maritime boundary to try to catch the dinghies, the occupants of the dinghies will throw themselves into the water (or just fall in when the authorities try to shunt or tow their pathetic, flimsy vessels back towards France,) and the Border Force officers will then be obliged to fish them out.
Any that get through the screen will then be met by RNLI welcome committees instead. So, it'll make no difference to anything. Just one more example of something-must-be-done-ism.
Its stupid and dangerous to be messing around with people in the water. Anyone in the water should be removed from the water.
The only sustainable way to deal with it is to determine what happens next once they're out of the water. If they know they'll end up in the UK, people will continue doing it, risking more lives on a very dangerous and deadly crossing.
If they know that they'll end up in somewhere like Nauru or Papua New Guinea as has been done by the Australian Labor and Liberal governments, or Rwanda as has been proposed by Denmark's Social Democrat government, then that would actually stop the dinghies getting in the water in the first place.
Yes, but as I understand it neither PNG nor Rwanda are willing.
If Rwanda are willing would you be happy for the UK to follow Denmark's Social Democrat government in doing that?
Why Rwanda? Why not Ramsgate?
What would the function be? To determine whether they have a legitimate claim to be in the UK.
Yes? Stay. No? Whatever the protocol is.
Where this processing happens shouldn't worry you.
Ramsgate doesn't stop people drowning in the Channel.
The Social Democrat proposal is if they have a legitimate claim to asylum then they get that asylum in Rwanda, paid for and facilitated by Denmark.
In Australia processing the applications in Nauru caused the number of crossings to drop to zero.
That was something else my dad said which stuck with me a bit - any older person who isn't against this is a person without a conscience and has no empathy for the following generations. It matches up with my experience of posters in favour and against this policy on PB. He was ashamed of his own generation's selfishness tonight, he knows they've had it good with property prices being what they were when they were buying their houses in the 70s and 80s.
Well I am under 40 and disagree.
Yes here in the South housing is more expensive than it has been but I also know I will inherit far more than my parents or grandparents did too. So it works both ways
Phew. That's OK, then.
I don't but if anyone could convince me a 100% inheritance tax would be a good thing, its HYUFD.
People should be able to get on through their own efforts, not rely upon the inheritance from others.
I'm very comfortable with the inheritance thang; less so with self-proclaimed libertarians starting sentences "People should..."
What is wrong with a libertarian saying "People should be able to ..."
As a general phrase that's pretty much the fundamental principle of libertarianism - that people should be able to [insert here]. As opposed to saying they should have to, or should not be able to, saying they should be able to makes it their own choice.
Although (pedant mode) I guess with a 100% inheritance tax they wouldn't be able to choose to rely on an inheritance.
Of course and as I said I don't support that, but HYUFD makes it very tempting to support it. 😉
A 100% inheritance tax would turn the South to Labour, there is no way those on average incomes in London and the South East can afford to buy without an inheritance from parents or grandparents now.
So most would be renters without assets within a generation and reliant on a strong state unless a Tory government got in and reversed it before then
At which point, they might suddenly discover that the problem is the planning system / greenbelt, and vote to abolish it.
If the South ever gets below 50% home ownership, it becomes in most voters interest to demolish the planning system, build like crazy and crash the price of housing.
One of the interesting things about the economics of housing is that being so essential, it's very price sensitive to supply and demand. Ten people fighting over nine houses will result in the richest nine all putting at least more the maximum amount that the tenth man can afford. Ten people fighting over ten houses - whoever is willing to take the crummiest one pays nearly nothing, then it just comes down to the margin people will pay for the nicer ones. You only have to build one extra house to get from one of these scenarios to the other. I wonder how many extra houses it would take to collapse house prices in the SE back to the value of the agricultural land plus the building costs. Maybe a million - possibly half that, especially if it was obvious that anyone who wanted to pay the minimum could just buy a lump of farmland and build on it.
You've touched upon a very important point.
The wealth of Brits is tied up in their properties. If you collapse the housing price, you destroy the savings of millions of people. They will increase their savings rate to compensate (see Spain 2011).
It's a very fine line the government needs to walk.
You say that like its a bad thing. Our savings rate has been too long for a long time and is why we've run a long-term unsustainable structural trade deficit is it not?
Plus most people will never cash out their "savings" on their house, so its a faux saving anyway which completely warps and distorts both our economics and our politics.
A house is first and foremost somewhere to live. Making it harder for people to live, or harder for people to move about going where the job opportunities are etc just diminishes the economy.
And if people didn't think that they had a windfall lined up in a property inheritance then maybe we could have more sensible discussions about these things. The notion that some have that they need an inheritance, to pay for a house, because house prices are high, so therefore we need to keep prices high, so they can get their inheritance . . . is a rather circular and flawed logic. If house prices come down, you could get the house without an inheritance - and you'd no longer "need" that inheritance.
PS the one catastrophic thing with collapsing house prices is if you get negative equity, which is why we need inflation to mask the fall in prices so people don't get negative equity.
Spot on again. You are making a disturbing habit of this.
Apart from the bit about inflation. Philip never writes the explanation as to why rising prices is good for home owners (that interest rates will never go up and that pay will go up too). I think it’s brave to assume that pay would go up, though I think it’s safe to say interest rates will never go above 1.0% ever again.
"I think it’s safe to say interest rates will never go above 1.0% ever again."
I'm happy to offer you pretty good odds on that.
The "ever again" was hyperbole, but in what circumstances do you envisage the BoE putting up rates above 0.75%?
I started work in May 2009. In my working life the base rate has never been above 0.75%. We had serious inflation in 2011 (my commuting costs increased by 40%), and the BoE did nothing. The reality is, there are a lot of people with big mortgages who simply could not afford to pay them if the base rate goes much above 1%.
I think the only circumstances in which the BoE acts is if there is a run on the pound.
I paid 12% on my first mortgage in the nineties. Those were the negative equity days of hangover after the Thatcher House price boom.
I paid 19% on my first mortgage, shortly after Thatcher became PM.
yet yesterday there was so much chat on here of how easy life had been for todays pensioners, they never had to struggle to pay for their property, it was basicaklly given to them without the need for hard work and sacrifice so of course the state should take it away from them.
Yet still none of the "we worked hard all our lives" brigade have been able to answer why their particular generation should be richer and have a bigger share of housing wealth than any before them and also their kids and grandkids.
Did their parents and grandparents not work hard as well? Did they not raise their children to work hard? Truly a unique and special generation.....
Border Force authorised to turn back migrants, 50 years of Genesis and Radacando! Another day in Normalania.
Will there now be a race between BF vessels and the RNLI to reach the boat people?
I should imagine that the Border Force boats will patrol the maritime boundary to try to catch the dinghies, the occupants of the dinghies will throw themselves into the water (or just fall in when the authorities try to shunt or tow their pathetic, flimsy vessels back towards France,) and the Border Force officers will then be obliged to fish them out.
Any that get through the screen will then be met by RNLI welcome committees instead. So, it'll make no difference to anything. Just one more example of something-must-be-done-ism.
Its stupid and dangerous to be messing around with people in the water. Anyone in the water should be removed from the water.
The only sustainable way to deal with it is to determine what happens next once they're out of the water. If they know they'll end up in the UK, people will continue doing it, risking more lives on a very dangerous and deadly crossing.
If they know that they'll end up in somewhere like Nauru or Papua New Guinea as has been done by the Australian Labor and Liberal governments, or Rwanda as has been proposed by Denmark's Social Democrat government, then that would actually stop the dinghies getting in the water in the first place.
The solution is to do a deal with France where we and they intercept them all and land them back on French beaches. They will then never try again.
The quid pro quo for France is less "pull" for them into the Calais area, lots of money to help them out, and border force and RN boats in the Med to help them out in turn - it needs someone who can really flatter, understand and build strong relationships with the huffy and proud French.
That's clearly not Patel.
I am still curious about the number of people who have died crossing the channel in this manner. Yet no one else seems interested.
if it is zero, then they are incredible seamen - we should follow my idea to press them into the Royal Navy.
If it is 10-20% then they are doing as well as the RN estimates for the "natural wastage" for Sea Lion.
Small, over crowded boats, in the tides and currents of the Channel. Add ships the size of office blocks charging around......
Not that many because if hundreds were drowning there would be plenty of bodies washing up.massive amounts of maritime traffic and surveillance make it one the best places in the world to survive if you go in the oggin.
I have a very hard time believing in a casualty rate of zero.
If it is zero then we need to conscript them into the Navy immediately. They would be geniuses in small boats....
It's not zero coz bodies have fetched up in Belgium, Norway, etc but it's not hundreds either.
How many dead bodies should we be happy to tolerate?
The Patel headline grabber is no more than that - and one timed for the end of the crossing season. Obviously, in practice it will make very little difference - we don’t have enough patrol boats for a start - so what happens then?
Johnson has just sent 2 X opv to be permanently deployed in the Pacific. Quite what 'lean crewed' vessels armed with a single 30mm gun and no aviation facilities are doing there beyond empty symbolism remains a mystery.
Dilnot on LBC. "Structurally, quite a lot" of his plan has been implemented. But not generous enough with the proposed funding and we have no idea how much money will actually be forthcoming. As he points out we have been here before (in 2014 pushed through by the LibDems) and then had it pulled by the Tories.
Only a sliver of the money goes to social care before the next election. No parliament can bind its successors. This is classic kicking the can down the road, smoke and mirrors, not even a serious attempt to tackle social care.
Border Force authorised to turn back migrants, 50 years of Genesis and Radacando! Another day in Normalania.
Will there now be a race between BF vessels and the RNLI to reach the boat people?
I should imagine that the Border Force boats will patrol the maritime boundary to try to catch the dinghies, the occupants of the dinghies will throw themselves into the water (or just fall in when the authorities try to shunt or tow their pathetic, flimsy vessels back towards France,) and the Border Force officers will then be obliged to fish them out.
Any that get through the screen will then be met by RNLI welcome committees instead. So, it'll make no difference to anything. Just one more example of something-must-be-done-ism.
Its stupid and dangerous to be messing around with people in the water. Anyone in the water should be removed from the water.
The only sustainable way to deal with it is to determine what happens next once they're out of the water. If they know they'll end up in the UK, people will continue doing it, risking more lives on a very dangerous and deadly crossing.
If they know that they'll end up in somewhere like Nauru or Papua New Guinea as has been done by the Australian Labor and Liberal governments, or Rwanda as has been proposed by Denmark's Social Democrat government, then that would actually stop the dinghies getting in the water in the first place.
Yes, but as I understand it neither PNG nor Rwanda are willing.
If Rwanda are willing would you be happy for the UK to follow Denmark's Social Democrat government in doing that?
Why Rwanda? Why not Ramsgate?
What would the function be? To determine whether they have a legitimate claim to be in the UK.
Yes? Stay. No? Whatever the protocol is.
Where this processing happens shouldn't worry you.
No, the proposal is to allow asylum-seekers the chance of a new life in Rwanda, paid for by the British government.
Because they’re fleeing persecution, rather than trying to become economic migrants, right?
I'm no international lawyer but I can't see British involvement, if it is necessary, being limited to such a role.
Border Force authorised to turn back migrants, 50 years of Genesis and Radacando! Another day in Normalania.
Will there now be a race between BF vessels and the RNLI to reach the boat people?
I should imagine that the Border Force boats will patrol the maritime boundary to try to catch the dinghies, the occupants of the dinghies will throw themselves into the water (or just fall in when the authorities try to shunt or tow their pathetic, flimsy vessels back towards France,) and the Border Force officers will then be obliged to fish them out.
Any that get through the screen will then be met by RNLI welcome committees instead. So, it'll make no difference to anything. Just one more example of something-must-be-done-ism.
Its stupid and dangerous to be messing around with people in the water. Anyone in the water should be removed from the water.
The only sustainable way to deal with it is to determine what happens next once they're out of the water. If they know they'll end up in the UK, people will continue doing it, risking more lives on a very dangerous and deadly crossing.
If they know that they'll end up in somewhere like Nauru or Papua New Guinea as has been done by the Australian Labor and Liberal governments, or Rwanda as has been proposed by Denmark's Social Democrat government, then that would actually stop the dinghies getting in the water in the first place.
Yes, but as I understand it neither PNG nor Rwanda are willing.
If Rwanda are willing would you be happy for the UK to follow Denmark's Social Democrat government in doing that?
Why Rwanda? Why not Ramsgate?
What would the function be? To determine whether they have a legitimate claim to be in the UK.
Yes? Stay. No? Whatever the protocol is.
Where this processing happens shouldn't worry you.
Ramsgate doesn't stop people drowning in the Channel.
The Social Democrat proposal is if they have a legitimate claim to asylum then they get that asylum in Rwanda, paid for and facilitated by Denmark.
In Australia processing the applications in Nauru caused the number of crossings to drop to zero.
Your proposal is, literally and in reality, concentration camps. Happy with that?
Border Force authorised to turn back migrants, 50 years of Genesis and Radacando! Another day in Normalania.
Will there now be a race between BF vessels and the RNLI to reach the boat people?
I should imagine that the Border Force boats will patrol the maritime boundary to try to catch the dinghies, the occupants of the dinghies will throw themselves into the water (or just fall in when the authorities try to shunt or tow their pathetic, flimsy vessels back towards France,) and the Border Force officers will then be obliged to fish them out.
Any that get through the screen will then be met by RNLI welcome committees instead. So, it'll make no difference to anything. Just one more example of something-must-be-done-ism.
Its stupid and dangerous to be messing around with people in the water. Anyone in the water should be removed from the water.
The only sustainable way to deal with it is to determine what happens next once they're out of the water. If they know they'll end up in the UK, people will continue doing it, risking more lives on a very dangerous and deadly crossing.
If they know that they'll end up in somewhere like Nauru or Papua New Guinea as has been done by the Australian Labor and Liberal governments, or Rwanda as has been proposed by Denmark's Social Democrat government, then that would actually stop the dinghies getting in the water in the first place.
Yes, but as I understand it neither PNG nor Rwanda are willing.
If Rwanda are willing would you be happy for the UK to follow Denmark's Social Democrat government in doing that?
Why Rwanda? Why not Ramsgate?
What would the function be? To determine whether they have a legitimate claim to be in the UK.
Yes? Stay. No? Whatever the protocol is.
Where this processing happens shouldn't worry you.
Ramsgate doesn't stop people drowning in the Channel.
The Social Democrat proposal is if they have a legitimate claim to asylum then they get that asylum in Rwanda, paid for and facilitated by Denmark.
In Australia processing the applications in Nauru caused the number of crossings to drop to zero.
Your proposal is, literally and in reality, concentration camps. Happy with that?
No, not remotely. It isn't that and no I would not be happy with that.
Border Force authorised to turn back migrants, 50 years of Genesis and Radacando! Another day in Normalania.
Will there now be a race between BF vessels and the RNLI to reach the boat people?
I should imagine that the Border Force boats will patrol the maritime boundary to try to catch the dinghies, the occupants of the dinghies will throw themselves into the water (or just fall in when the authorities try to shunt or tow their pathetic, flimsy vessels back towards France,) and the Border Force officers will then be obliged to fish them out.
Any that get through the screen will then be met by RNLI welcome committees instead. So, it'll make no difference to anything. Just one more example of something-must-be-done-ism.
Its stupid and dangerous to be messing around with people in the water. Anyone in the water should be removed from the water.
The only sustainable way to deal with it is to determine what happens next once they're out of the water. If they know they'll end up in the UK, people will continue doing it, risking more lives on a very dangerous and deadly crossing.
If they know that they'll end up in somewhere like Nauru or Papua New Guinea as has been done by the Australian Labor and Liberal governments, or Rwanda as has been proposed by Denmark's Social Democrat government, then that would actually stop the dinghies getting in the water in the first place.
Yes, but as I understand it neither PNG nor Rwanda are willing.
If Rwanda are willing would you be happy for the UK to follow Denmark's Social Democrat government in doing that?
Why Rwanda? Why not Ramsgate?
What would the function be? To determine whether they have a legitimate claim to be in the UK.
Yes? Stay. No? Whatever the protocol is.
Where this processing happens shouldn't worry you.
No, the proposal is to allow asylum-seekers the chance of a new life in Rwanda, paid for by the British government.
Because they’re fleeing persecution, rather than trying to become economic migrants, right?
I'm no international lawyer but I can't see British involvement, if it is necessary, being limited to such a role.
Its a policy already successfully implemented by the Australians (under both Liberals and Labor), and being developed by the Danish Social Democrats.
Why wouldn't it be suitable for Britain and what international courts would challenge it under international law?
Border Force authorised to turn back migrants, 50 years of Genesis and Radacando! Another day in Normalania.
Will there now be a race between BF vessels and the RNLI to reach the boat people?
I should imagine that the Border Force boats will patrol the maritime boundary to try to catch the dinghies, the occupants of the dinghies will throw themselves into the water (or just fall in when the authorities try to shunt or tow their pathetic, flimsy vessels back towards France,) and the Border Force officers will then be obliged to fish them out.
Any that get through the screen will then be met by RNLI welcome committees instead. So, it'll make no difference to anything. Just one more example of something-must-be-done-ism.
Its stupid and dangerous to be messing around with people in the water. Anyone in the water should be removed from the water.
The only sustainable way to deal with it is to determine what happens next once they're out of the water. If they know they'll end up in the UK, people will continue doing it, risking more lives on a very dangerous and deadly crossing.
If they know that they'll end up in somewhere like Nauru or Papua New Guinea as has been done by the Australian Labor and Liberal governments, or Rwanda as has been proposed by Denmark's Social Democrat government, then that would actually stop the dinghies getting in the water in the first place.
The solution is to do a deal with France where we and they intercept them all and land them back on French beaches. They will then never try again.
The quid pro quo for France is less "pull" for them into the Calais area, lots of money to help them out, and border force and RN boats in the Med to help them out in turn - it needs someone who can really flatter, understand and build strong relationships with the huffy and proud French.
That's clearly not Patel.
I am still curious about the number of people who have died crossing the channel in this manner. Yet no one else seems interested.
if it is zero, then they are incredible seamen - we should follow my idea to press them into the Royal Navy.
If it is 10-20% then they are doing as well as the RN estimates for the "natural wastage" for Sea Lion.
Small, over crowded boats, in the tides and currents of the Channel. Add ships the size of office blocks charging around......
Not that many because if hundreds were drowning there would be plenty of bodies washing up.massive amounts of maritime traffic and surveillance make it one the best places in the world to survive if you go in the oggin.
I have a very hard time believing in a casualty rate of zero.
If it is zero then we need to conscript them into the Navy immediately. They would be geniuses in small boats....
It's not zero coz bodies have fetched up in Belgium, Norway, etc but it's not hundreds either.
How many dead bodies should we be happy to tolerate?
Border Force authorised to turn back migrants, 50 years of Genesis and Radacando! Another day in Normalania.
Will there now be a race between BF vessels and the RNLI to reach the boat people?
I should imagine that the Border Force boats will patrol the maritime boundary to try to catch the dinghies, the occupants of the dinghies will throw themselves into the water (or just fall in when the authorities try to shunt or tow their pathetic, flimsy vessels back towards France,) and the Border Force officers will then be obliged to fish them out.
Any that get through the screen will then be met by RNLI welcome committees instead. So, it'll make no difference to anything. Just one more example of something-must-be-done-ism.
Its stupid and dangerous to be messing around with people in the water. Anyone in the water should be removed from the water.
The only sustainable way to deal with it is to determine what happens next once they're out of the water. If they know they'll end up in the UK, people will continue doing it, risking more lives on a very dangerous and deadly crossing.
If they know that they'll end up in somewhere like Nauru or Papua New Guinea as has been done by the Australian Labor and Liberal governments, or Rwanda as has been proposed by Denmark's Social Democrat government, then that would actually stop the dinghies getting in the water in the first place.
Yes, but as I understand it neither PNG nor Rwanda are willing.
If Rwanda are willing would you be happy for the UK to follow Denmark's Social Democrat government in doing that?
Why Rwanda? Why not Ramsgate?
What would the function be? To determine whether they have a legitimate claim to be in the UK.
Yes? Stay. No? Whatever the protocol is.
Where this processing happens shouldn't worry you.
Ramsgate doesn't stop people drowning in the Channel.
The Social Democrat proposal is if they have a legitimate claim to asylum then they get that asylum in Rwanda, paid for and facilitated by Denmark.
In Australia processing the applications in Nauru caused the number of crossings to drop to zero.
Yes but we don't have a pet Nauru knocking around. And as for Denmark, the quote I found was for asylum-seekers to be moved "to asylum centres in a partner country for case reviews and possibly their protection in that country".
So not sure about the "they get asylum in Rwanda" part.
Dilnot on LBC. "Structurally, quite a lot" of his plan has been implemented. But not generous enough with the proposed funding and we have no idea how much money will actually be forthcoming. As he points out we have been here before (in 2014 pushed through by the LibDems) and then had it pulled by the Tories.
Telegraph seems to be saying that anyone who enters the care system before Oct 2023 will not be eligible for the cap.
Border Force authorised to turn back migrants, 50 years of Genesis and Radacando! Another day in Normalania.
Will there now be a race between BF vessels and the RNLI to reach the boat people?
I should imagine that the Border Force boats will patrol the maritime boundary to try to catch the dinghies, the occupants of the dinghies will throw themselves into the water (or just fall in when the authorities try to shunt or tow their pathetic, flimsy vessels back towards France,) and the Border Force officers will then be obliged to fish them out.
Any that get through the screen will then be met by RNLI welcome committees instead. So, it'll make no difference to anything. Just one more example of something-must-be-done-ism.
Its stupid and dangerous to be messing around with people in the water. Anyone in the water should be removed from the water.
The only sustainable way to deal with it is to determine what happens next once they're out of the water. If they know they'll end up in the UK, people will continue doing it, risking more lives on a very dangerous and deadly crossing.
If they know that they'll end up in somewhere like Nauru or Papua New Guinea as has been done by the Australian Labor and Liberal governments, or Rwanda as has been proposed by Denmark's Social Democrat government, then that would actually stop the dinghies getting in the water in the first place.
Yes, but as I understand it neither PNG nor Rwanda are willing.
If Rwanda are willing would you be happy for the UK to follow Denmark's Social Democrat government in doing that?
Why Rwanda? Why not Ramsgate?
What would the function be? To determine whether they have a legitimate claim to be in the UK.
Yes? Stay. No? Whatever the protocol is.
Where this processing happens shouldn't worry you.
No, the proposal is to allow asylum-seekers the chance of a new life in Rwanda, paid for by the British government.
Because they’re fleeing persecution, rather than trying to become economic migrants, right?
I'm no international lawyer but I can't see British involvement, if it is necessary, being limited to such a role.
Its a policy already successfully implemented by the Australians (under both Liberals and Labor), and being developed by the Danish Social Democrats.
Why wouldn't it be suitable for Britain and what international courts would challenge it under international law?
The Australian policy worked because it was combined with tow backs and because it was possible to remove refugees to PNG/ Nauru without them ever setting flip flop in the Australian migration zone and hence access to legal redress
Dilnot on LBC. "Structurally, quite a lot" of his plan has been implemented. But not generous enough with the proposed funding and we have no idea how much money will actually be forthcoming. As he points out we have been here before (in 2014 pushed through by the LibDems) and then had it pulled by the Tories.
Telegraph seems to be saying that anyone who enters the care system before Oct 2023 will not be eligible for the cap.
I can see that causing major issues.
I dont think that can be true for younger people already requiring care?
Australia found neighbouring states prepared to host their G4S concentration camps to sweep unwanted aliens into. If England can find somewhere similar I imagine the policy would be the same - out of sight out of mind.
Frankly going off the horrors reported from the Australian camps the desperate asylum seekers crossing the channel would be better having the smirking monster drown them than preside over them in years of incarceration for profit at the lowest cost.
That was something else my dad said which stuck with me a bit - any older person who isn't against this is a person without a conscience and has no empathy for the following generations. It matches up with my experience of posters in favour and against this policy on PB. He was ashamed of his own generation's selfishness tonight, he knows they've had it good with property prices being what they were when they were buying their houses in the 70s and 80s.
Well I am under 40 and disagree.
Yes here in the South housing is more expensive than it has been but I also know I will inherit far more than my parents or grandparents did too. So it works both ways
Phew. That's OK, then.
I don't but if anyone could convince me a 100% inheritance tax would be a good thing, its HYUFD.
People should be able to get on through their own efforts, not rely upon the inheritance from others.
I'm very comfortable with the inheritance thang; less so with self-proclaimed libertarians starting sentences "People should..."
What is wrong with a libertarian saying "People should be able to ..."
As a general phrase that's pretty much the fundamental principle of libertarianism - that people should be able to [insert here]. As opposed to saying they should have to, or should not be able to, saying they should be able to makes it their own choice.
Although (pedant mode) I guess with a 100% inheritance tax they wouldn't be able to choose to rely on an inheritance.
Of course and as I said I don't support that, but HYUFD makes it very tempting to support it. 😉
A 100% inheritance tax would turn the South to Labour, there is no way those on average incomes in London and the South East can afford to buy without an inheritance from parents or grandparents now.
So most would be renters without assets within a generation and reliant on a strong state unless a Tory government got in and reversed it before then
At which point, they might suddenly discover that the problem is the planning system / greenbelt, and vote to abolish it.
If the South ever gets below 50% home ownership, it becomes in most voters interest to demolish the planning system, build like crazy and crash the price of housing.
One of the interesting things about the economics of housing is that being so essential, it's very price sensitive to supply and demand. Ten people fighting over nine houses will result in the richest nine all putting at least more the maximum amount that the tenth man can afford. Ten people fighting over ten houses - whoever is willing to take the crummiest one pays nearly nothing, then it just comes down to the margin people will pay for the nicer ones. You only have to build one extra house to get from one of these scenarios to the other. I wonder how many extra houses it would take to collapse house prices in the SE back to the value of the agricultural land plus the building costs. Maybe a million - possibly half that, especially if it was obvious that anyone who wanted to pay the minimum could just buy a lump of farmland and build on it.
You've touched upon a very important point.
The wealth of Brits is tied up in their properties. If you collapse the housing price, you destroy the savings of millions of people. They will increase their savings rate to compensate (see Spain 2011).
It's a very fine line the government needs to walk.
You say that like its a bad thing. Our savings rate has been too long for a long time and is why we've run a long-term unsustainable structural trade deficit is it not?
Plus most people will never cash out their "savings" on their house, so its a faux saving anyway which completely warps and distorts both our economics and our politics.
A house is first and foremost somewhere to live. Making it harder for people to live, or harder for people to move about going where the job opportunities are etc just diminishes the economy.
And if people didn't think that they had a windfall lined up in a property inheritance then maybe we could have more sensible discussions about these things. The notion that some have that they need an inheritance, to pay for a house, because house prices are high, so therefore we need to keep prices high, so they can get their inheritance . . . is a rather circular and flawed logic. If house prices come down, you could get the house without an inheritance - and you'd no longer "need" that inheritance.
PS the one catastrophic thing with collapsing house prices is if you get negative equity, which is why we need inflation to mask the fall in prices so people don't get negative equity.
Spot on again. You are making a disturbing habit of this.
Apart from the bit about inflation. Philip never writes the explanation as to why rising prices is good for home owners (that interest rates will never go up and that pay will go up too). I think it’s brave to assume that pay would go up, though I think it’s safe to say interest rates will never go above 1.0% ever again.
"I think it’s safe to say interest rates will never go above 1.0% ever again."
I'm happy to offer you pretty good odds on that.
The "ever again" was hyperbole, but in what circumstances do you envisage the BoE putting up rates above 0.75%?
I started work in May 2009. In my working life the base rate has never been above 0.75%. We had serious inflation in 2011 (my commuting costs increased by 40%), and the BoE did nothing. The reality is, there are a lot of people with big mortgages who simply could not afford to pay them if the base rate goes much above 1%.
I think the only circumstances in which the BoE acts is if there is a run on the pound.
I paid 12% on my first mortgage in the nineties. Those were the negative equity days of hangover after the Thatcher House price boom.
I paid 19% on my first mortgage, shortly after Thatcher became PM.
Yes, I remember my dad being very squeezed at the same time.
There was much more inflation though, and the principle from the Seventies to the Noughties was to buy the most expensive house possible, pay eye watering mortgages and let inflation reduce the mortgage to affordable levels after a number of years. It worked to a fashion for both me and my dad.
Nowadays there are eye-watering mortgages, but no inflation to reduce the debt, so they stay eye watering.
When we bought our current house the mortgage was right on the edge of affordability and we really struggled towards the end of each month but within a few years some modest inflation and increased nominal earnings made it very affordable and we were able to start paying down the capital. My daughter has been determined to overpay her mortgage and reduce the debt too but it has been so much harder for her with the very slow increases in nominal wages.
The more I think about the more angry I am about the amount of tax young people are paying.
And I find lots of young people really annoying, particularly their narcissism, veganism and off-the-scale Wokeness - but it's still totally wrong and they don't deserve it.
How many young people do you know? I think of my kids and their mates, as well as the under-40s I work with, and I don’t recognise your description of them. Mostly they are just trying to make their way in a world created by and run for people much older than them.
Lots. I manage many in my job and come across them in my day-to-day life.
You don't recognise my description because you're a Lefty and you agree with things like radical ecosocialism and Wokeness so don't even register it.
What are the tells of being into radical ecosocialism and wokeness as it has manifested itself in your office over the past few months by those young people?
Border Force authorised to turn back migrants, 50 years of Genesis and Radacando! Another day in Normalania.
Will there now be a race between BF vessels and the RNLI to reach the boat people?
I should imagine that the Border Force boats will patrol the maritime boundary to try to catch the dinghies, the occupants of the dinghies will throw themselves into the water (or just fall in when the authorities try to shunt or tow their pathetic, flimsy vessels back towards France,) and the Border Force officers will then be obliged to fish them out.
Any that get through the screen will then be met by RNLI welcome committees instead. So, it'll make no difference to anything. Just one more example of something-must-be-done-ism.
Its stupid and dangerous to be messing around with people in the water. Anyone in the water should be removed from the water.
The only sustainable way to deal with it is to determine what happens next once they're out of the water. If they know they'll end up in the UK, people will continue doing it, risking more lives on a very dangerous and deadly crossing.
If they know that they'll end up in somewhere like Nauru or Papua New Guinea as has been done by the Australian Labor and Liberal governments, or Rwanda as has been proposed by Denmark's Social Democrat government, then that would actually stop the dinghies getting in the water in the first place.
Yes, but as I understand it neither PNG nor Rwanda are willing.
If Rwanda are willing would you be happy for the UK to follow Denmark's Social Democrat government in doing that?
Why Rwanda? Why not Ramsgate?
What would the function be? To determine whether they have a legitimate claim to be in the UK.
Yes? Stay. No? Whatever the protocol is.
Where this processing happens shouldn't worry you.
No, the proposal is to allow asylum-seekers the chance of a new life in Rwanda, paid for by the British government.
Because they’re fleeing persecution, rather than trying to become economic migrants, right?
I'm no international lawyer but I can't see British involvement, if it is necessary, being limited to such a role.
Its a policy already successfully implemented by the Australians (under both Liberals and Labor), and being developed by the Danish Social Democrats.
Why wouldn't it be suitable for Britain and what international courts would challenge it under international law?
The Australian policy worked because it was combined with tow backs and because it was possible to remove refugees to PNG/ Nauru without them ever setting flip flop in the Australian migration zone and hence access to legal redress
Neither of those factors apply in the channel
No no. We're going to tow the boats back to France, charge France for the tow AND have the french fly them at their expense to our Rwandan concentration camps.
Dilnot on LBC. "Structurally, quite a lot" of his plan has been implemented. But not generous enough with the proposed funding and we have no idea how much money will actually be forthcoming. As he points out we have been here before (in 2014 pushed through by the LibDems) and then had it pulled by the Tories.
Telegraph seems to be saying that anyone who enters the care system before Oct 2023 will not be eligible for the cap.
I can see that causing major issues.
I'm not sure what that means.
Does it mean that if someone enters care now and contributes now so that they, say, have contributed £20k up to Oct 2023 will be liable to contribute £86k from Oct 2023 and so will, in effect, be liable to contribute £106k?
Or does it mean that that person won't be eligible for the £86k cap at all?
Border Force authorised to turn back migrants, 50 years of Genesis and Radacando! Another day in Normalania.
Will there now be a race between BF vessels and the RNLI to reach the boat people?
I should imagine that the Border Force boats will patrol the maritime boundary to try to catch the dinghies, the occupants of the dinghies will throw themselves into the water (or just fall in when the authorities try to shunt or tow their pathetic, flimsy vessels back towards France,) and the Border Force officers will then be obliged to fish them out.
Any that get through the screen will then be met by RNLI welcome committees instead. So, it'll make no difference to anything. Just one more example of something-must-be-done-ism.
Its stupid and dangerous to be messing around with people in the water. Anyone in the water should be removed from the water.
The only sustainable way to deal with it is to determine what happens next once they're out of the water. If they know they'll end up in the UK, people will continue doing it, risking more lives on a very dangerous and deadly crossing.
If they know that they'll end up in somewhere like Nauru or Papua New Guinea as has been done by the Australian Labor and Liberal governments, or Rwanda as has been proposed by Denmark's Social Democrat government, then that would actually stop the dinghies getting in the water in the first place.
Yes, but as I understand it neither PNG nor Rwanda are willing.
If Rwanda are willing would you be happy for the UK to follow Denmark's Social Democrat government in doing that?
Why Rwanda? Why not Ramsgate?
What would the function be? To determine whether they have a legitimate claim to be in the UK.
Yes? Stay. No? Whatever the protocol is.
Where this processing happens shouldn't worry you.
No, the proposal is to allow asylum-seekers the chance of a new life in Rwanda, paid for by the British government.
Because they’re fleeing persecution, rather than trying to become economic migrants, right?
I'm no international lawyer but I can't see British involvement, if it is necessary, being limited to such a role.
Its a policy already successfully implemented by the Australians (under both Liberals and Labor), and being developed by the Danish Social Democrats.
Why wouldn't it be suitable for Britain and what international courts would challenge it under international law?
The Australian policy worked because it was combined with tow backs and because it was possible to remove refugees to PNG/ Nauru without them ever setting flip flop in the Australian migration zone and hence access to legal redress
Neither of those factors apply in the channel
I still like my idea that anyone picked up in the Channel without documents is automatically pressed into the Navy.
This solves
- the Navy manning issue - carries on the multi-cultural traditions of the RN - gives the people in question a job, benefits etc. In addition to a safe place to live. - they don't get to touch UK soil, hence solving the legal issues.
Border Force authorised to turn back migrants, 50 years of Genesis and Radacando! Another day in Normalania.
Will there now be a race between BF vessels and the RNLI to reach the boat people?
I should imagine that the Border Force boats will patrol the maritime boundary to try to catch the dinghies, the occupants of the dinghies will throw themselves into the water (or just fall in when the authorities try to shunt or tow their pathetic, flimsy vessels back towards France,) and the Border Force officers will then be obliged to fish them out.
Any that get through the screen will then be met by RNLI welcome committees instead. So, it'll make no difference to anything. Just one more example of something-must-be-done-ism.
Its stupid and dangerous to be messing around with people in the water. Anyone in the water should be removed from the water.
The only sustainable way to deal with it is to determine what happens next once they're out of the water. If they know they'll end up in the UK, people will continue doing it, risking more lives on a very dangerous and deadly crossing.
If they know that they'll end up in somewhere like Nauru or Papua New Guinea as has been done by the Australian Labor and Liberal governments, or Rwanda as has been proposed by Denmark's Social Democrat government, then that would actually stop the dinghies getting in the water in the first place.
Yes, but as I understand it neither PNG nor Rwanda are willing.
If Rwanda are willing would you be happy for the UK to follow Denmark's Social Democrat government in doing that?
Why Rwanda? Why not Ramsgate?
What would the function be? To determine whether they have a legitimate claim to be in the UK.
Yes? Stay. No? Whatever the protocol is.
Where this processing happens shouldn't worry you.
No, the proposal is to allow asylum-seekers the chance of a new life in Rwanda, paid for by the British government.
Because they’re fleeing persecution, rather than trying to become economic migrants, right?
I'm no international lawyer but I can't see British involvement, if it is necessary, being limited to such a role.
Its a policy already successfully implemented by the Australians (under both Liberals and Labor), and being developed by the Danish Social Democrats.
Why wouldn't it be suitable for Britain and what international courts would challenge it under international law?
The Australian policy worked because it was combined with tow backs and because it was possible to remove refugees to PNG/ Nauru without them ever setting flip flop in the Australian migration zone and hence access to legal redress
Neither of those factors apply in the channel
I still like my idea that anyone picked up in the Channel without documents is automatically pressed into the Navy.
This solves
- the Navy manning issue - carries on the multi-cultural traditions of the RN - gives the people in question a job, benefits etc. In addition to a safe place to live. - they don't get to touch UK soil, hence solving the legal issues.
What's not to like?
And we can then send HMS Press Gang off to foreign parts to help secure those Global Britain better than the EU gets trade deals!
That was something else my dad said which stuck with me a bit - any older person who isn't against this is a person without a conscience and has no empathy for the following generations. It matches up with my experience of posters in favour and against this policy on PB. He was ashamed of his own generation's selfishness tonight, he knows they've had it good with property prices being what they were when they were buying their houses in the 70s and 80s.
Well I am under 40 and disagree.
Yes here in the South housing is more expensive than it has been but I also know I will inherit far more than my parents or grandparents did too. So it works both ways
Phew. That's OK, then.
I don't but if anyone could convince me a 100% inheritance tax would be a good thing, its HYUFD.
People should be able to get on through their own efforts, not rely upon the inheritance from others.
I'm very comfortable with the inheritance thang; less so with self-proclaimed libertarians starting sentences "People should..."
What is wrong with a libertarian saying "People should be able to ..."
As a general phrase that's pretty much the fundamental principle of libertarianism - that people should be able to [insert here]. As opposed to saying they should have to, or should not be able to, saying they should be able to makes it their own choice.
Although (pedant mode) I guess with a 100% inheritance tax they wouldn't be able to choose to rely on an inheritance.
Of course and as I said I don't support that, but HYUFD makes it very tempting to support it. 😉
A 100% inheritance tax would turn the South to Labour, there is no way those on average incomes in London and the South East can afford to buy without an inheritance from parents or grandparents now.
So most would be renters without assets within a generation and reliant on a strong state unless a Tory government got in and reversed it before then
At which point, they might suddenly discover that the problem is the planning system / greenbelt, and vote to abolish it.
If the South ever gets below 50% home ownership, it becomes in most voters interest to demolish the planning system, build like crazy and crash the price of housing.
One of the interesting things about the economics of housing is that being so essential, it's very price sensitive to supply and demand. Ten people fighting over nine houses will result in the richest nine all putting at least more the maximum amount that the tenth man can afford. Ten people fighting over ten houses - whoever is willing to take the crummiest one pays nearly nothing, then it just comes down to the margin people will pay for the nicer ones. You only have to build one extra house to get from one of these scenarios to the other. I wonder how many extra houses it would take to collapse house prices in the SE back to the value of the agricultural land plus the building costs. Maybe a million - possibly half that, especially if it was obvious that anyone who wanted to pay the minimum could just buy a lump of farmland and build on it.
You've touched upon a very important point.
The wealth of Brits is tied up in their properties. If you collapse the housing price, you destroy the savings of millions of people. They will increase their savings rate to compensate (see Spain 2011).
It's a very fine line the government needs to walk.
You say that like its a bad thing. Our savings rate has been too long for a long time and is why we've run a long-term unsustainable structural trade deficit is it not?
Plus most people will never cash out their "savings" on their house, so its a faux saving anyway which completely warps and distorts both our economics and our politics.
A house is first and foremost somewhere to live. Making it harder for people to live, or harder for people to move about going where the job opportunities are etc just diminishes the economy.
And if people didn't think that they had a windfall lined up in a property inheritance then maybe we could have more sensible discussions about these things. The notion that some have that they need an inheritance, to pay for a house, because house prices are high, so therefore we need to keep prices high, so they can get their inheritance . . . is a rather circular and flawed logic. If house prices come down, you could get the house without an inheritance - and you'd no longer "need" that inheritance.
PS the one catastrophic thing with collapsing house prices is if you get negative equity, which is why we need inflation to mask the fall in prices so people don't get negative equity.
Spot on again. You are making a disturbing habit of this.
Apart from the bit about inflation. Philip never writes the explanation as to why rising prices is good for home owners (that interest rates will never go up and that pay will go up too). I think it’s brave to assume that pay would go up, though I think it’s safe to say interest rates will never go above 1.0% ever again.
"I think it’s safe to say interest rates will never go above 1.0% ever again."
I'm happy to offer you pretty good odds on that.
The "ever again" was hyperbole, but in what circumstances do you envisage the BoE putting up rates above 0.75%?
I started work in May 2009. In my working life the base rate has never been above 0.75%. We had serious inflation in 2011 (my commuting costs increased by 40%), and the BoE did nothing. The reality is, there are a lot of people with big mortgages who simply could not afford to pay them if the base rate goes much above 1%.
I think the only circumstances in which the BoE acts is if there is a run on the pound.
I paid 12% on my first mortgage in the nineties. Those were the negative equity days of hangover after the Thatcher House price boom.
I paid 19% on my first mortgage, shortly after Thatcher became PM.
Yes, I remember my dad being very squeezed at the same time.
There was much more inflation though, and the principle from the Seventies to the Noughties was to buy the most expensive house possible, pay eye watering mortgages and let inflation reduce the mortgage to affordable levels after a number of years. It worked to a fashion for both me and my dad.
Nowadays there are eye-watering mortgages, but no inflation to reduce the debt, so they stay eye watering.
When we bought our current house the mortgage was right on the edge of affordability and we really struggled towards the end of each month but within a few years some modest inflation and increased nominal earnings made it very affordable and we were able to start paying down the capital. My daughter has been determined to overpay her mortgage and reduce the debt too but it has been so much harder for her with the very slow increases in nominal wages.
The more I think about the more angry I am about the amount of tax young people are paying.
And I find lots of young people really annoying, particularly their narcissism, veganism and off-the-scale Wokeness - but it's still totally wrong and they don't deserve it.
How many young people do you know? I think of my kids and their mates, as well as the under-40s I work with, and I don’t recognise your description of them. Mostly they are just trying to make their way in a world created by and run for people much older than them.
Lots. I manage many in my job and come across them in my day-to-day life.
You don't recognise my description because you're a Lefty and you agree with things like radical ecosocialism and Wokeness so don't even register it.
What are the tells of being into radical ecosocialism and wokeness as it has manifested itself in your office over the past few months by those young people?
"Can I have a day off to go and protest for XR?"
I think that covers both.
LOL
Or rather: "Can I have a day off to go and protest for XR you filthy capitalist running dog pig" surely?
That was something else my dad said which stuck with me a bit - any older person who isn't against this is a person without a conscience and has no empathy for the following generations. It matches up with my experience of posters in favour and against this policy on PB. He was ashamed of his own generation's selfishness tonight, he knows they've had it good with property prices being what they were when they were buying their houses in the 70s and 80s.
Well I am under 40 and disagree.
Yes here in the South housing is more expensive than it has been but I also know I will inherit far more than my parents or grandparents did too. So it works both ways
Phew. That's OK, then.
I don't but if anyone could convince me a 100% inheritance tax would be a good thing, its HYUFD.
People should be able to get on through their own efforts, not rely upon the inheritance from others.
I'm very comfortable with the inheritance thang; less so with self-proclaimed libertarians starting sentences "People should..."
What is wrong with a libertarian saying "People should be able to ..."
As a general phrase that's pretty much the fundamental principle of libertarianism - that people should be able to [insert here]. As opposed to saying they should have to, or should not be able to, saying they should be able to makes it their own choice.
Although (pedant mode) I guess with a 100% inheritance tax they wouldn't be able to choose to rely on an inheritance.
Of course and as I said I don't support that, but HYUFD makes it very tempting to support it. 😉
A 100% inheritance tax would turn the South to Labour, there is no way those on average incomes in London and the South East can afford to buy without an inheritance from parents or grandparents now.
So most would be renters without assets within a generation and reliant on a strong state unless a Tory government got in and reversed it before then
At which point, they might suddenly discover that the problem is the planning system / greenbelt, and vote to abolish it.
If the South ever gets below 50% home ownership, it becomes in most voters interest to demolish the planning system, build like crazy and crash the price of housing.
One of the interesting things about the economics of housing is that being so essential, it's very price sensitive to supply and demand. Ten people fighting over nine houses will result in the richest nine all putting at least more the maximum amount that the tenth man can afford. Ten people fighting over ten houses - whoever is willing to take the crummiest one pays nearly nothing, then it just comes down to the margin people will pay for the nicer ones. You only have to build one extra house to get from one of these scenarios to the other. I wonder how many extra houses it would take to collapse house prices in the SE back to the value of the agricultural land plus the building costs. Maybe a million - possibly half that, especially if it was obvious that anyone who wanted to pay the minimum could just buy a lump of farmland and build on it.
You've touched upon a very important point.
The wealth of Brits is tied up in their properties. If you collapse the housing price, you destroy the savings of millions of people. They will increase their savings rate to compensate (see Spain 2011).
It's a very fine line the government needs to walk.
You say that like its a bad thing. Our savings rate has been too long for a long time and is why we've run a long-term unsustainable structural trade deficit is it not?
Plus most people will never cash out their "savings" on their house, so its a faux saving anyway which completely warps and distorts both our economics and our politics.
A house is first and foremost somewhere to live. Making it harder for people to live, or harder for people to move about going where the job opportunities are etc just diminishes the economy.
And if people didn't think that they had a windfall lined up in a property inheritance then maybe we could have more sensible discussions about these things. The notion that some have that they need an inheritance, to pay for a house, because house prices are high, so therefore we need to keep prices high, so they can get their inheritance . . . is a rather circular and flawed logic. If house prices come down, you could get the house without an inheritance - and you'd no longer "need" that inheritance.
PS the one catastrophic thing with collapsing house prices is if you get negative equity, which is why we need inflation to mask the fall in prices so people don't get negative equity.
Spot on again. You are making a disturbing habit of this.
Apart from the bit about inflation. Philip never writes the explanation as to why rising prices is good for home owners (that interest rates will never go up and that pay will go up too). I think it’s brave to assume that pay would go up, though I think it’s safe to say interest rates will never go above 1.0% ever again.
"I think it’s safe to say interest rates will never go above 1.0% ever again."
I'm happy to offer you pretty good odds on that.
The "ever again" was hyperbole, but in what circumstances do you envisage the BoE putting up rates above 0.75%?
I started work in May 2009. In my working life the base rate has never been above 0.75%. We had serious inflation in 2011 (my commuting costs increased by 40%), and the BoE did nothing. The reality is, there are a lot of people with big mortgages who simply could not afford to pay them if the base rate goes much above 1%.
I think the only circumstances in which the BoE acts is if there is a run on the pound.
I paid 12% on my first mortgage in the nineties. Those were the negative equity days of hangover after the Thatcher House price boom.
I paid 19% on my first mortgage, shortly after Thatcher became PM.
Yes, I remember my dad being very squeezed at the same time.
There was much more inflation though, and the principle from the Seventies to the Noughties was to buy the most expensive house possible, pay eye watering mortgages and let inflation reduce the mortgage to affordable levels after a number of years. It worked to a fashion for both me and my dad.
Nowadays there are eye-watering mortgages, but no inflation to reduce the debt, so they stay eye watering.
When we bought our current house the mortgage was right on the edge of affordability and we really struggled towards the end of each month but within a few years some modest inflation and increased nominal earnings made it very affordable and we were able to start paying down the capital. My daughter has been determined to overpay her mortgage and reduce the debt too but it has been so much harder for her with the very slow increases in nominal wages.
The more I think about the more angry I am about the amount of tax young people are paying.
And I find lots of young people really annoying, particularly their narcissism, veganism and off-the-scale Wokeness - but it's still totally wrong and they don't deserve it.
How many young people do you know? I think of my kids and their mates, as well as the under-40s I work with, and I don’t recognise your description of them. Mostly they are just trying to make their way in a world created by and run for people much older than them.
Lots. I manage many in my job and come across them in my day-to-day life.
You don't recognise my description because you're a Lefty and you agree with things like radical ecosocialism and Wokeness so don't even register it.
What are the tells of being into radical ecosocialism and wokeness as it has manifested itself in your office over the past few months by those young people?
"Can I have a day off to go and protest for XR?"
I think that covers both.
We did have fun with a candidate at one company, who had left his Farcebook postings about his Black Blok type activities visible to all. Said postings were a few months before the interview....
On the channel I am opposed to sending migrants to any foreign country, other than back to France
I do not know how this is resolved as France is lukewarm on taking them back, but all the migrants must be kept safe whenever entering UK waters either by the border force or RNLI
The idea of us exporting migrants to far away places is just unacceptable
Border Force authorised to turn back migrants, 50 years of Genesis and Radacando! Another day in Normalania.
Will there now be a race between BF vessels and the RNLI to reach the boat people?
I should imagine that the Border Force boats will patrol the maritime boundary to try to catch the dinghies, the occupants of the dinghies will throw themselves into the water (or just fall in when the authorities try to shunt or tow their pathetic, flimsy vessels back towards France,) and the Border Force officers will then be obliged to fish them out.
Any that get through the screen will then be met by RNLI welcome committees instead. So, it'll make no difference to anything. Just one more example of something-must-be-done-ism.
Its stupid and dangerous to be messing around with people in the water. Anyone in the water should be removed from the water.
The only sustainable way to deal with it is to determine what happens next once they're out of the water. If they know they'll end up in the UK, people will continue doing it, risking more lives on a very dangerous and deadly crossing.
If they know that they'll end up in somewhere like Nauru or Papua New Guinea as has been done by the Australian Labor and Liberal governments, or Rwanda as has been proposed by Denmark's Social Democrat government, then that would actually stop the dinghies getting in the water in the first place.
Yes, but as I understand it neither PNG nor Rwanda are willing.
If Rwanda are willing would you be happy for the UK to follow Denmark's Social Democrat government in doing that?
Why Rwanda? Why not Ramsgate?
What would the function be? To determine whether they have a legitimate claim to be in the UK.
Yes? Stay. No? Whatever the protocol is.
Where this processing happens shouldn't worry you.
No, the proposal is to allow asylum-seekers the chance of a new life in Rwanda, paid for by the British government.
Because they’re fleeing persecution, rather than trying to become economic migrants, right?
I'm no international lawyer but I can't see British involvement, if it is necessary, being limited to such a role.
Its a policy already successfully implemented by the Australians (under both Liberals and Labor), and being developed by the Danish Social Democrats.
Why wouldn't it be suitable for Britain and what international courts would challenge it under international law?
I have no idea as I said IANAIL. But if the Brits are involved then I must believe that there will be some kind of obligation to act beyond redirecting them to a sub-Saharan African country.
And as per the Danish proposals, I can only find articles saying that asylum seekers will be processed abroad. Nothing that they will be given asylum abroad.
And if this was the case then I like the proposal even less.
Dilnot on LBC. "Structurally, quite a lot" of his plan has been implemented. But not generous enough with the proposed funding and we have no idea how much money will actually be forthcoming. As he points out we have been here before (in 2014 pushed through by the LibDems) and then had it pulled by the Tories.
Telegraph seems to be saying that anyone who enters the care system before Oct 2023 will not be eligible for the cap.
I can see that causing major issues.
It is close to 100% certain that care will be worse in 2023/4 than it is now due to the need for unfunded pay rises, staff shortages and increasing demand.
Labour should go all in here instead of sitting back.
Border Force authorised to turn back migrants, 50 years of Genesis and Radacando! Another day in Normalania.
Will there now be a race between BF vessels and the RNLI to reach the boat people?
I should imagine that the Border Force boats will patrol the maritime boundary to try to catch the dinghies, the occupants of the dinghies will throw themselves into the water (or just fall in when the authorities try to shunt or tow their pathetic, flimsy vessels back towards France,) and the Border Force officers will then be obliged to fish them out.
Any that get through the screen will then be met by RNLI welcome committees instead. So, it'll make no difference to anything. Just one more example of something-must-be-done-ism.
Its stupid and dangerous to be messing around with people in the water. Anyone in the water should be removed from the water.
The only sustainable way to deal with it is to determine what happens next once they're out of the water. If they know they'll end up in the UK, people will continue doing it, risking more lives on a very dangerous and deadly crossing.
If they know that they'll end up in somewhere like Nauru or Papua New Guinea as has been done by the Australian Labor and Liberal governments, or Rwanda as has been proposed by Denmark's Social Democrat government, then that would actually stop the dinghies getting in the water in the first place.
Yes, but as I understand it neither PNG nor Rwanda are willing.
Border Force authorised to turn back migrants, 50 years of Genesis and Radacando! Another day in Normalania.
Will there now be a race between BF vessels and the RNLI to reach the boat people?
I should imagine that the Border Force boats will patrol the maritime boundary to try to catch the dinghies, the occupants of the dinghies will throw themselves into the water (or just fall in when the authorities try to shunt or tow their pathetic, flimsy vessels back towards France,) and the Border Force officers will then be obliged to fish them out.
Any that get through the screen will then be met by RNLI welcome committees instead. So, it'll make no difference to anything. Just one more example of something-must-be-done-ism.
Its stupid and dangerous to be messing around with people in the water. Anyone in the water should be removed from the water.
The only sustainable way to deal with it is to determine what happens next once they're out of the water. If they know they'll end up in the UK, people will continue doing it, risking more lives on a very dangerous and deadly crossing.
If they know that they'll end up in somewhere like Nauru or Papua New Guinea as has been done by the Australian Labor and Liberal governments, or Rwanda as has been proposed by Denmark's Social Democrat government, then that would actually stop the dinghies getting in the water in the first place.
Yes, but as I understand it neither PNG nor Rwanda are willing.
If Rwanda are willing would you be happy for the UK to follow Denmark's Social Democrat government in doing that?
Why Rwanda? Why not Ramsgate?
What would the function be? To determine whether they have a legitimate claim to be in the UK.
Yes? Stay. No? Whatever the protocol is.
Where this processing happens shouldn't worry you.
No, the proposal is to allow asylum-seekers the chance of a new life in Rwanda, paid for by the British government.
Because they’re fleeing persecution, rather than trying to become economic migrants, right?
I'm no international lawyer but I can't see British involvement, if it is necessary, being limited to such a role.
Its a policy already successfully implemented by the Australians (under both Liberals and Labor), and being developed by the Danish Social Democrats.
Why wouldn't it be suitable for Britain and what international courts would challenge it under international law?
The Australian policy worked because it was combined with tow backs and because it was possible to remove refugees to PNG/ Nauru without them ever setting flip flop in the Australian migration zone and hence access to legal redress
Neither of those factors apply in the channel
I still like my idea that anyone picked up in the Channel without documents is automatically pressed into the Navy.
This solves
- the Navy manning issue - carries on the multi-cultural traditions of the RN - gives the people in question a job, benefits etc. In addition to a safe place to live. - they don't get to touch UK soil, hence solving the legal issues.
What's not to like?
Makes it pretty easy for the next Admiral Bin Laden to infiltrate?
On the channel I am opposed to sending migrants to any foreign country, other than back to France
I do not know how this is resolved as France is lukewarm on taking them back, but all the migrants must be kept safe whenever entering UK waters either by the border force or RNLI
The idea of us exporting migrants to far away places is just unacceptable
Genuine question. Why is "exporting migrants to far away places" unacceptable? Trying to understand everyones position on this. I'm not doubting you have a moral/ethical/practical view on this, nor am I questioning the validity of such views....
As with previous pitiful debates on this subject. England doesn't want migrants. Scotland does. So the effort to drown the forrin vermin is being done by England for England.
Border Force authorised to turn back migrants, 50 years of Genesis and Radacando! Another day in Normalania.
Will there now be a race between BF vessels and the RNLI to reach the boat people?
I should imagine that the Border Force boats will patrol the maritime boundary to try to catch the dinghies, the occupants of the dinghies will throw themselves into the water (or just fall in when the authorities try to shunt or tow their pathetic, flimsy vessels back towards France,) and the Border Force officers will then be obliged to fish them out.
Any that get through the screen will then be met by RNLI welcome committees instead. So, it'll make no difference to anything. Just one more example of something-must-be-done-ism.
Its stupid and dangerous to be messing around with people in the water. Anyone in the water should be removed from the water.
The only sustainable way to deal with it is to determine what happens next once they're out of the water. If they know they'll end up in the UK, people will continue doing it, risking more lives on a very dangerous and deadly crossing.
If they know that they'll end up in somewhere like Nauru or Papua New Guinea as has been done by the Australian Labor and Liberal governments, or Rwanda as has been proposed by Denmark's Social Democrat government, then that would actually stop the dinghies getting in the water in the first place.
Yes, but as I understand it neither PNG nor Rwanda are willing.
If Rwanda are willing would you be happy for the UK to follow Denmark's Social Democrat government in doing that?
Why Rwanda? Why not Ramsgate?
What would the function be? To determine whether they have a legitimate claim to be in the UK.
Yes? Stay. No? Whatever the protocol is.
Where this processing happens shouldn't worry you.
No, the proposal is to allow asylum-seekers the chance of a new life in Rwanda, paid for by the British government.
Because they’re fleeing persecution, rather than trying to become economic migrants, right?
I'm no international lawyer but I can't see British involvement, if it is necessary, being limited to such a role.
Its a policy already successfully implemented by the Australians (under both Liberals and Labor), and being developed by the Danish Social Democrats.
Why wouldn't it be suitable for Britain and what international courts would challenge it under international law?
The Australian policy worked because it was combined with tow backs and because it was possible to remove refugees to PNG/ Nauru without them ever setting flip flop in the Australian migration zone and hence access to legal redress
Neither of those factors apply in the channel
I still like my idea that anyone picked up in the Channel without documents is automatically pressed into the Navy.
This solves
- the Navy manning issue - carries on the multi-cultural traditions of the RN - gives the people in question a job, benefits etc. In addition to a safe place to live. - they don't get to touch UK soil, hence solving the legal issues.
What's not to like?
Makes it pretty easy for the next Admiral Bin Laden to infiltrate?
{Red Faced Bloke In Pub Mode}
Make him into a useful citizen with some Proper Hard Work.
Border Force authorised to turn back migrants, 50 years of Genesis and Radacando! Another day in Normalania.
Will there now be a race between BF vessels and the RNLI to reach the boat people?
I should imagine that the Border Force boats will patrol the maritime boundary to try to catch the dinghies, the occupants of the dinghies will throw themselves into the water (or just fall in when the authorities try to shunt or tow their pathetic, flimsy vessels back towards France,) and the Border Force officers will then be obliged to fish them out.
Any that get through the screen will then be met by RNLI welcome committees instead. So, it'll make no difference to anything. Just one more example of something-must-be-done-ism.
Its stupid and dangerous to be messing around with people in the water. Anyone in the water should be removed from the water.
The only sustainable way to deal with it is to determine what happens next once they're out of the water. If they know they'll end up in the UK, people will continue doing it, risking more lives on a very dangerous and deadly crossing.
If they know that they'll end up in somewhere like Nauru or Papua New Guinea as has been done by the Australian Labor and Liberal governments, or Rwanda as has been proposed by Denmark's Social Democrat government, then that would actually stop the dinghies getting in the water in the first place.
Yes, but as I understand it neither PNG nor Rwanda are willing.
If Rwanda are willing would you be happy for the UK to follow Denmark's Social Democrat government in doing that?
Why Rwanda? Why not Ramsgate?
What would the function be? To determine whether they have a legitimate claim to be in the UK.
Yes? Stay. No? Whatever the protocol is.
Where this processing happens shouldn't worry you.
Ramsgate doesn't stop people drowning in the Channel.
The Social Democrat proposal is if they have a legitimate claim to asylum then they get that asylum in Rwanda, paid for and facilitated by Denmark.
In Australia processing the applications in Nauru caused the number of crossings to drop to zero.
Your proposal is, literally and in reality, concentration camps. Happy with that?
No, not remotely. It isn't that and no I would not be happy with that.
That's an offensive and fallacious Godwin.
Those who fail to study the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them. Concentration camps are as British as Yorkshire pudding, and were a 19th century invention to put undesirable Africans all in the one place (concentrate them), in Africa. Looks a good fit for your plan to me. The expression is an inaccurate euphemism when applied to C20 labour and death camps.
Your problem (one of them) is an unusually optimistic view of human nature (other than homeowners and farmers). I would on the whole sooner be dead than interned in a Rwandan holding camp as an unwanted national of a different African country. Watermelon smiles would be in short supply.
On the channel I am opposed to sending migrants to any foreign country, other than back to France
I do not know how this is resolved as France is lukewarm on taking them back, but all the migrants must be kept safe whenever entering UK waters either by the border force or RNLI
The idea of us exporting migrants to far away places is just unacceptable
Genuine question. Why is "exporting migrants to far away places" unacceptable? Trying to understand everyones position on this. I'm not doubting you have a moral/ethical/practical view on this, nor am I questioning the validity of such views....
Maybe exporting is too strong but I just do not like the idea that illegal migrants are sent to far away places and that we cannot find a compassionate solution to this very difficult problem
That looks like a very small rebellion indeed, and a crushing triumph for Boris Johnson. However, the Government won the vote by 319 to 248. Tom Newton-Dunn tweeted earlier that a maximum of 46 Conservative MPs therefore didn’t vote with the Government. Which means that 39 Tory backbenchers abstained."
I don't know of Neil Hudson, but the remaining four are probably the maddest eye,-swivellers in the Commons.
I would be interested as to whom were the abstainers.
Mr Johnson nonetheless appears very pleased with himself over this latest wizard wheeze.
As someone who has a 92 year old family member who one would have assumed would be a beneficiary of this social care package, I am disappointed, as they are not. I continue to supplement the care home costs until the family home is sold.
On the channel I am opposed to sending migrants to any foreign country, other than back to France
I do not know how this is resolved as France is lukewarm on taking them back, but all the migrants must be kept safe whenever entering UK waters either by the border force or RNLI
The idea of us exporting migrants to far away places is just unacceptable
Genuine question. Why is "exporting migrants to far away places" unacceptable? Trying to understand everyones position on this. I'm not doubting you have a moral/ethical/practical view on this, nor am I questioning the validity of such views....
Maybe exporting is too strong but I just do not like the idea that illegal migrants are sent to far away places and that we cannot find a compassionate solution to this very difficult problem
Sending them back to France only means that they will try again. And again. Assuming they are economic migrants I'm unsure why you are opposed to returning them to their origin?
The Prole FPT 'At which point, they might suddenly discover that the problem is the planning system / greenbelt, and vote to abolish it.
If the South ever gets below 50% home ownership, it becomes in most voters interest to demolish the planning system, build like crazy and crash the price of housing.
One of the interesting things about the economics of housing is that being so essential, it's very price sensitive to supply and demand. Ten people fighting over nine houses will result in the richest nine all putting at least more the maximum amount that the tenth man can afford. Ten people fighting over ten houses - whoever is willing to take the crummiest one pays nearly nothing, then it just comes down to the margin people will pay for the nicer ones. You only have to build one extra house to get from one of these scenarios to the other. I wonder how many extra houses it would take to collapse house prices in the SE back to the value of the agricultural land plus the building costs. Maybe a million - possibly half that, especially if it was obvious that anyone who wanted to pay the minimum could just buy a lump of farmland and build on it.'
No, they do not want the entirety of the South East turned into a concrete jungle and urban sprawl either.
Plus unless you end all foreign investment in London property, severely restrict immigration and ensure new affordable homes are restricted to local first time buyers who have lived there for 7 years or more only new housing alone would not solve the problem
That looks like a very small rebellion indeed, and a crushing triumph for Boris Johnson. However, the Government won the vote by 319 to 248. Tom Newton-Dunn tweeted earlier that a maximum of 46 Conservative MPs therefore didn’t vote with the Government. Which means that 39 Tory backbenchers abstained."
I don't know of Neil Hudson, but the remaining four are probably the maddest eye,-swivellers in the Commons.
I would be interested as to whom were the abstainers.
Mr Johnson nonetheless appears very pleased with himself over this latest wizard wheeze.
As someone who has a 92 year old family member who one would have assumed would be a beneficiary of this social care package, I am disappointed, as they are not. I continue to supplement the care home costs until the family home is sold.
Just as a matter of interest is your family member in Wales
Dilnot on LBC. "Structurally, quite a lot" of his plan has been implemented. But not generous enough with the proposed funding and we have no idea how much money will actually be forthcoming. As he points out we have been here before (in 2014 pushed through by the LibDems) and then had it pulled by the Tories.
Telegraph seems to be saying that anyone who enters the care system before Oct 2023 will not be eligible for the cap.
I can see that causing major issues.
I'm not sure what that means.
Does it mean that if someone enters care now and contributes now so that they, say, have contributed £20k up to Oct 2023 will be liable to contribute £86k from Oct 2023 and so will, in effect, be liable to contribute £106k?
Or does it mean that that person won't be eligible for the £86k cap at all?
I don't think it is actually clear, but the way the Telegraph are describing it, it is the latter. If you rack up even £20 of care costs in next two years you will not be eligible for the cap. Maybe this will be resolved but at moment I think it means a lot of people will now cling on for dear life, possibly in awful home conditions, to avoid starting their clock as it were.
Edit: I have now looked at the actual document released by Johnson for the plans. It states:
"from October 2023, no eligible person starting adult social care will have to pay more than £86,000 for personal care over their lifetime."
On the channel I am opposed to sending migrants to any foreign country, other than back to France
I do not know how this is resolved as France is lukewarm on taking them back, but all the migrants must be kept safe whenever entering UK waters either by the border force or RNLI
The idea of us exporting migrants to far away places is just unacceptable
Genuine question. Why is "exporting migrants to far away places" unacceptable? Trying to understand everyones position on this. I'm not doubting you have a moral/ethical/practical view on this, nor am I questioning the validity of such views....
Maybe exporting is too strong but I just do not like the idea that illegal migrants are sent to far away places and that we cannot find a compassionate solution to this very difficult problem
Why is distance the issue? Is it the culture/level of development in the country they are being sent to?
That looks like a very small rebellion indeed, and a crushing triumph for Boris Johnson. However, the Government won the vote by 319 to 248. Tom Newton-Dunn tweeted earlier that a maximum of 46 Conservative MPs therefore didn’t vote with the Government. Which means that 39 Tory backbenchers abstained."
I don't know of Neil Hudson, but the remaining four are probably the maddest eye,-swivellers in the Commons.
I would be interested as to whom were the abstainers.
Mr Johnson nonetheless appears very pleased with himself over this latest wizard wheeze.
As someone who has a 92 year old family member who one would have assumed would be a beneficiary of this social care package, I am disappointed, as they are not. I continue to supplement the care home costs until the family home is sold.
Is that because the family home has been brought into the financial assessment or because you are supplementing for a better care home?
On the channel I am opposed to sending migrants to any foreign country, other than back to France
I do not know how this is resolved as France is lukewarm on taking them back, but all the migrants must be kept safe whenever entering UK waters either by the border force or RNLI
The idea of us exporting migrants to far away places is just unacceptable
Genuine question. Why is "exporting migrants to far away places" unacceptable? Trying to understand everyones position on this. I'm not doubting you have a moral/ethical/practical view on this, nor am I questioning the validity of such views....
Maybe exporting is too strong but I just do not like the idea that illegal migrants are sent to far away places and that we cannot find a compassionate solution to this very difficult problem
Send them to Scotland. If England has been overcome with xenophobia, Scotland hasn't. We don't have the devolved power to settle migrants and have asked for it.
On the channel I am opposed to sending migrants to any foreign country, other than back to France
I do not know how this is resolved as France is lukewarm on taking them back, but all the migrants must be kept safe whenever entering UK waters either by the border force or RNLI
The idea of us exporting migrants to far away places is just unacceptable
Genuine question. Why is "exporting migrants to far away places" unacceptable? Trying to understand everyones position on this. I'm not doubting you have a moral/ethical/practical view on this, nor am I questioning the validity of such views....
Maybe exporting is too strong but I just do not like the idea that illegal migrants are sent to far away places and that we cannot find a compassionate solution to this very difficult problem
Why is distance the issue? Is it the culture/level of development in the country they are being sent to?
i.e. you are OK with a European country?
They should be returned to France wherever possible and the people smugglers have to be dealt with jointly by UK and France
On the channel I am opposed to sending migrants to any foreign country, other than back to France
I do not know how this is resolved as France is lukewarm on taking them back, but all the migrants must be kept safe whenever entering UK waters either by the border force or RNLI
The idea of us exporting migrants to far away places is just unacceptable
Genuine question. Why is "exporting migrants to far away places" unacceptable? Trying to understand everyones position on this. I'm not doubting you have a moral/ethical/practical view on this, nor am I questioning the validity of such views....
You are effectively sending people to a third world prison, in a strange country where they don't have the friends and relations on the outside who are key to survival in a third world prison. What those naively applauding the Rwanda plan don't realise is, its principal value is deterrent: it would be recognised as a fate worse than death by those potentially subject to it.
Dilnot on LBC. "Structurally, quite a lot" of his plan has been implemented. But not generous enough with the proposed funding and we have no idea how much money will actually be forthcoming. As he points out we have been here before (in 2014 pushed through by the LibDems) and then had it pulled by the Tories.
Telegraph seems to be saying that anyone who enters the care system before Oct 2023 will not be eligible for the cap.
I can see that causing major issues.
I'm not sure what that means.
Does it mean that if someone enters care now and contributes now so that they, say, have contributed £20k up to Oct 2023 will be liable to contribute £86k from Oct 2023 and so will, in effect, be liable to contribute £106k?
Or does it mean that that person won't be eligible for the £86k cap at all?
I don't think it is actually clear, but the way the Telegraph are describing it, it is the latter. If you rack up even £20 of care costs in next two years you will not be eligible for the cap. Maybe this will be resolved but at moment I think it means a lot of people will now cling on for dear life, possibly in awful home conditions, to avoid starting their clock as it were.
That's absurd. Will cause massive issues as relatives desperately try to delay admissions. Massive sums are at stake here. People will be propping their oldies up with sellotape and twigs.
What if someone enters a care home in Sept 2023?
Edit: And, my mum's in a care home now. So what if I take her out and re-admit her in Oct 2023?
Border Force authorised to turn back migrants, 50 years of Genesis and Radacando! Another day in Normalania.
Will there now be a race between BF vessels and the RNLI to reach the boat people?
I should imagine that the Border Force boats will patrol the maritime boundary to try to catch the dinghies, the occupants of the dinghies will throw themselves into the water (or just fall in when the authorities try to shunt or tow their pathetic, flimsy vessels back towards France,) and the Border Force officers will then be obliged to fish them out.
Any that get through the screen will then be met by RNLI welcome committees instead. So, it'll make no difference to anything. Just one more example of something-must-be-done-ism.
Its stupid and dangerous to be messing around with people in the water. Anyone in the water should be removed from the water.
The only sustainable way to deal with it is to determine what happens next once they're out of the water. If they know they'll end up in the UK, people will continue doing it, risking more lives on a very dangerous and deadly crossing.
If they know that they'll end up in somewhere like Nauru or Papua New Guinea as has been done by the Australian Labor and Liberal governments, or Rwanda as has been proposed by Denmark's Social Democrat government, then that would actually stop the dinghies getting in the water in the first place.
Yes, but as I understand it neither PNG nor Rwanda are willing.
If Rwanda are willing would you be happy for the UK to follow Denmark's Social Democrat government in doing that?
Why Rwanda? Why not Ramsgate?
What would the function be? To determine whether they have a legitimate claim to be in the UK.
Yes? Stay. No? Whatever the protocol is.
Where this processing happens shouldn't worry you.
Ramsgate doesn't stop people drowning in the Channel.
The Social Democrat proposal is if they have a legitimate claim to asylum then they get that asylum in Rwanda, paid for and facilitated by Denmark.
In Australia processing the applications in Nauru caused the number of crossings to drop to zero.
Your proposal is, literally and in reality, concentration camps. Happy with that?
No, not remotely. It isn't that and no I would not be happy with that.
That's an offensive and fallacious Godwin.
Those who fail to study the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them. Concentration camps are as British as Yorkshire pudding, and were a 19th century invention to put undesirable Africans all in the one place (concentrate them), in Africa. Looks a good fit for your plan to me. The expression is an inaccurate euphemism when applied to C20 labour and death camps.
Your problem (one of them) is an unusually optimistic view of human nature (other than homeowners and farmers). I would on the whole sooner be dead than interned in a Rwandan holding camp as an unwanted national of a different African country. Watermelon smiles would be in short supply.
The camps were for Dutch/Afrikaans-speaking S. Africans IIRC.
That looks like a very small rebellion indeed, and a crushing triumph for Boris Johnson. However, the Government won the vote by 319 to 248. Tom Newton-Dunn tweeted earlier that a maximum of 46 Conservative MPs therefore didn’t vote with the Government. Which means that 39 Tory backbenchers abstained."
I don't know of Neil Hudson, but the remaining four are probably the maddest eye,-swivellers in the Commons.
I would be interested as to whom were the abstainers.
Mr Johnson nonetheless appears very pleased with himself over this latest wizard wheeze.
As someone who has a 92 year old family member who one would have assumed would be a beneficiary of this social care package, I am disappointed, as they are not. I continue to supplement the care home costs until the family home is sold.
On the channel I am opposed to sending migrants to any foreign country, other than back to France
I do not know how this is resolved as France is lukewarm on taking them back, but all the migrants must be kept safe whenever entering UK waters either by the border force or RNLI
The idea of us exporting migrants to far away places is just unacceptable
Genuine question. Why is "exporting migrants to far away places" unacceptable? Trying to understand everyones position on this. I'm not doubting you have a moral/ethical/practical view on this, nor am I questioning the validity of such views....
Maybe exporting is too strong but I just do not like the idea that illegal migrants are sent to far away places and that we cannot find a compassionate solution to this very difficult problem
Send them to Scotland. If England has been overcome with xenophobia, Scotland hasn't. We don't have the devolved power to settle migrants and have asked for it.
The Scots are dead lucky to have acquired such a forthright new spokesman.
On the channel I am opposed to sending migrants to any foreign country, other than back to France
I do not know how this is resolved as France is lukewarm on taking them back, but all the migrants must be kept safe whenever entering UK waters either by the border force or RNLI
The idea of us exporting migrants to far away places is just unacceptable
Genuine question. Why is "exporting migrants to far away places" unacceptable? Trying to understand everyones position on this. I'm not doubting you have a moral/ethical/practical view on this, nor am I questioning the validity of such views....
Maybe exporting is too strong but I just do not like the idea that illegal migrants are sent to far away places and that we cannot find a compassionate solution to this very difficult problem
Sending them back to France only means that they will try again. And again. Assuming they are economic migrants I'm unsure why you are opposed to returning them to their origin?
I am just unhappy with the idea of sending them to camps in Africa
That looks like a very small rebellion indeed, and a crushing triumph for Boris Johnson. However, the Government won the vote by 319 to 248. Tom Newton-Dunn tweeted earlier that a maximum of 46 Conservative MPs therefore didn’t vote with the Government. Which means that 39 Tory backbenchers abstained."
I don't know of Neil Hudson, but the remaining four are probably the maddest eye,-swivellers in the Commons.
I would be interested as to whom were the abstainers.
Mr Johnson nonetheless appears very pleased with himself over this latest wizard wheeze.
As someone who has a 92 year old family member who one would have assumed would be a beneficiary of this social care package, I am disappointed, as they are not. I continue to supplement the care home costs until the family home is sold.
Neil Hudson is MP for Penrith, a former vet, and has helped us in local elections in Epping as his parents live in the area.
If he voted with his conscience that is up to him, still a clear government win
Dilnot on LBC. "Structurally, quite a lot" of his plan has been implemented. But not generous enough with the proposed funding and we have no idea how much money will actually be forthcoming. As he points out we have been here before (in 2014 pushed through by the LibDems) and then had it pulled by the Tories.
Telegraph seems to be saying that anyone who enters the care system before Oct 2023 will not be eligible for the cap.
I can see that causing major issues.
I'm not sure what that means.
Does it mean that if someone enters care now and contributes now so that they, say, have contributed £20k up to Oct 2023 will be liable to contribute £86k from Oct 2023 and so will, in effect, be liable to contribute £106k?
Or does it mean that that person won't be eligible for the £86k cap at all?
I don't think it is actually clear, but the way the Telegraph are describing it, it is the latter. If you rack up even £20 of care costs in next two years you will not be eligible for the cap. Maybe this will be resolved but at moment I think it means a lot of people will now cling on for dear life, possibly in awful home conditions, to avoid starting their clock as it were.
That's absurd. Will cause massive issues as relatives desperately try to delay admissions. Massive sums are at stake here. People will be propping their oldies up with sellotape and twigs.
What if someone enters a care home in Sept 2023?
Edit: And, my mum's in a care home now. So what if I take her out and re-admit her in Oct 2023?
Yep. Massive issues. People will be clinging on as you say. If they notice this hidden bit of detail that is.
Have backbenchers woken up to this yet? I seem to recall there was a rumour that some were planning an amendment so that this all starts next April, but I bet they have been diverted off that by whips by now.
Dilnot on LBC. "Structurally, quite a lot" of his plan has been implemented. But not generous enough with the proposed funding and we have no idea how much money will actually be forthcoming. As he points out we have been here before (in 2014 pushed through by the LibDems) and then had it pulled by the Tories.
Telegraph seems to be saying that anyone who enters the care system before Oct 2023 will not be eligible for the cap.
I can see that causing major issues.
I'm not sure what that means.
Does it mean that if someone enters care now and contributes now so that they, say, have contributed £20k up to Oct 2023 will be liable to contribute £86k from Oct 2023 and so will, in effect, be liable to contribute £106k?
Or does it mean that that person won't be eligible for the £86k cap at all?
I don't think it is actually clear, but the way the Telegraph are describing it, it is the latter. If you rack up even £20 of care costs in next two years you will not be eligible for the cap. Maybe this will be resolved but at moment I think it means a lot of people will now cling on for dear life, possibly in awful home conditions, to avoid starting their clock as it were.
That's absurd. Will cause massive issues as relatives desperately try to delay admissions. Massive sums are at stake here. People will be propping their oldies up with sellotape and twigs.
What if someone enters a care home in Sept 2023?
Edit: And, my mum's in a care home now. So what if I take her out and re-admit her in Oct 2023?
It is a good job we voted for parliament to take back control. I am sure they will spend a lot of time reviewing and scrutinising such major changes and hold the executive to account.
That looks like a very small rebellion indeed, and a crushing triumph for Boris Johnson. However, the Government won the vote by 319 to 248. Tom Newton-Dunn tweeted earlier that a maximum of 46 Conservative MPs therefore didn’t vote with the Government. Which means that 39 Tory backbenchers abstained."
On the channel I am opposed to sending migrants to any foreign country, other than back to France
I do not know how this is resolved as France is lukewarm on taking them back, but all the migrants must be kept safe whenever entering UK waters either by the border force or RNLI
The idea of us exporting migrants to far away places is just unacceptable
Genuine question. Why is "exporting migrants to far away places" unacceptable? Trying to understand everyones position on this. I'm not doubting you have a moral/ethical/practical view on this, nor am I questioning the validity of such views....
Maybe exporting is too strong but I just do not like the idea that illegal migrants are sent to far away places and that we cannot find a compassionate solution to this very difficult problem
Sending them back to France only means that they will try again. And again. Assuming they are economic migrants I'm unsure why you are opposed to returning them to their origin?
I am just unhappy with the idea of sending them to camps in Africa
While I realise that PP's parents were not formally part of the Asian exodus from Uganda, they seem to have had the foresight to see what was going to happen, so could reasonably be considered part of it. As I recall (and I helped furnish a house of two) while there was some opposition to them coming, they were seen as partly at least our responsibility.
On the channel I am opposed to sending migrants to any foreign country, other than back to France
I do not know how this is resolved as France is lukewarm on taking them back, but all the migrants must be kept safe whenever entering UK waters either by the border force or RNLI
The idea of us exporting migrants to far away places is just unacceptable
Genuine question. Why is "exporting migrants to far away places" unacceptable? Trying to understand everyones position on this. I'm not doubting you have a moral/ethical/practical view on this, nor am I questioning the validity of such views....
Maybe exporting is too strong but I just do not like the idea that illegal migrants are sent to far away places and that we cannot find a compassionate solution to this very difficult problem
Why is distance the issue? Is it the culture/level of development in the country they are being sent to?
i.e. you are OK with a European country?
I think the point is Europeans wouldn't touch it, because a detainee on their soil has rights by virtue of being on that soil, and anyway they'd charge the £1,000 a week it costs to keep people in prison, whereas the theory is Rwanda would charge 50p per prisoner per year and be a bit unruffled by the yooman rights side of things.
Mask wearing amongst Airedale commuters now down to around 10%.
Was more like 80% two weeks ago.
That's bonkers.
Airedales are not the most docile of animals and it's surely better to keep them muzzled.
Chuckle.
Going back to Sandy's point, I've noticed a similar (though not so pronounced) decline among Trafford shoppers. Tesco down from about 60% to about 30%. Sainsburys down from about 90% to about 50%. Local shops down from about 50% to about 5%. The Trafford Centre has been the most pronounced: down from about 60% to about 5%. People are finding that the world doesn't end if they take off their mask.
That was something else my dad said which stuck with me a bit - any older person who isn't against this is a person without a conscience and has no empathy for the following generations. It matches up with my experience of posters in favour and against this policy on PB. He was ashamed of his own generation's selfishness tonight, he knows they've had it good with property prices being what they were when they were buying their houses in the 70s and 80s.
Well I am under 40 and disagree.
Yes here in the South housing is more expensive than it has been but I also know I will inherit far more than my parents or grandparents did too. So it works both ways
Phew. That's OK, then.
I don't but if anyone could convince me a 100% inheritance tax would be a good thing, its HYUFD.
People should be able to get on through their own efforts, not rely upon the inheritance from others.
I'm very comfortable with the inheritance thang; less so with self-proclaimed libertarians starting sentences "People should..."
What is wrong with a libertarian saying "People should be able to ..."
As a general phrase that's pretty much the fundamental principle of libertarianism - that people should be able to [insert here]. As opposed to saying they should have to, or should not be able to, saying they should be able to makes it their own choice.
Although (pedant mode) I guess with a 100% inheritance tax they wouldn't be able to choose to rely on an inheritance.
Of course and as I said I don't support that, but HYUFD makes it very tempting to support it. 😉
A 100% inheritance tax would turn the South to Labour, there is no way those on average incomes in London and the South East can afford to buy without an inheritance from parents or grandparents now.
So most would be renters without assets within a generation and reliant on a strong state unless a Tory government got in and reversed it before then
At which point, they might suddenly discover that the problem is the planning system / greenbelt, and vote to abolish it.
If the South ever gets below 50% home ownership, it becomes in most voters interest to demolish the planning system, build like crazy and crash the price of housing.
One of the interesting things about the economics of housing is that being so essential, it's very price sensitive to supply and demand. Ten people fighting over nine houses will result in the richest nine all putting at least more the maximum amount that the tenth man can afford. Ten people fighting over ten houses - whoever is willing to take the crummiest one pays nearly nothing, then it just comes down to the margin people will pay for the nicer ones. You only have to build one extra house to get from one of these scenarios to the other. I wonder how many extra houses it would take to collapse house prices in the SE back to the value of the agricultural land plus the building costs. Maybe a million - possibly half that, especially if it was obvious that anyone who wanted to pay the minimum could just buy a lump of farmland and build on it.
You've touched upon a very important point.
The wealth of Brits is tied up in their properties. If you collapse the housing price, you destroy the savings of millions of people. They will increase their savings rate to compensate (see Spain 2011).
It's a very fine line the government needs to walk.
You say that like its a bad thing. Our savings rate has been too long for a long time and is why we've run a long-term unsustainable structural trade deficit is it not?
Plus most people will never cash out their "savings" on their house, so its a faux saving anyway which completely warps and distorts both our economics and our politics.
A house is first and foremost somewhere to live. Making it harder for people to live, or harder for people to move about going where the job opportunities are etc just diminishes the economy.
And if people didn't think that they had a windfall lined up in a property inheritance then maybe we could have more sensible discussions about these things. The notion that some have that they need an inheritance, to pay for a house, because house prices are high, so therefore we need to keep prices high, so they can get their inheritance . . . is a rather circular and flawed logic. If house prices come down, you could get the house without an inheritance - and you'd no longer "need" that inheritance.
PS the one catastrophic thing with collapsing house prices is if you get negative equity, which is why we need inflation to mask the fall in prices so people don't get negative equity.
Spot on again. You are making a disturbing habit of this.
Apart from the bit about inflation. Philip never writes the explanation as to why rising prices is good for home owners (that interest rates will never go up and that pay will go up too). I think it’s brave to assume that pay would go up, though I think it’s safe to say interest rates will never go above 1.0% ever again.
"I think it’s safe to say interest rates will never go above 1.0% ever again."
I'm happy to offer you pretty good odds on that.
The "ever again" was hyperbole, but in what circumstances do you envisage the BoE putting up rates above 0.75%?
I started work in May 2009. In my working life the base rate has never been above 0.75%. We had serious inflation in 2011 (my commuting costs increased by 40%), and the BoE did nothing. The reality is, there are a lot of people with big mortgages who simply could not afford to pay them if the base rate goes much above 1%.
I think the only circumstances in which the BoE acts is if there is a run on the pound.
I paid 12% on my first mortgage in the nineties. Those were the negative equity days of hangover after the Thatcher House price boom.
I paid 19% on my first mortgage, shortly after Thatcher became PM.
Yes, I remember my dad being very squeezed at the same time.
There was much more inflation though, and the principle from the Seventies to the Noughties was to buy the most expensive house possible, pay eye watering mortgages and let inflation reduce the mortgage to affordable levels after a number of years. It worked to a fashion for both me and my dad.
Nowadays there are eye-watering mortgages, but no inflation to reduce the debt, so they stay eye watering.
When we bought our current house the mortgage was right on the edge of affordability and we really struggled towards the end of each month but within a few years some modest inflation and increased nominal earnings made it very affordable and we were able to start paying down the capital. My daughter has been determined to overpay her mortgage and reduce the debt too but it has been so much harder for her with the very slow increases in nominal wages.
The more I think about the more angry I am about the amount of tax young people are paying.
And I find lots of young people really annoying, particularly their narcissism, veganism and off-the-scale Wokeness - but it's still totally wrong and they don't deserve it.
How many young people do you know? I think of my kids and their mates, as well as the under-40s I work with, and I don’t recognise your description of them. Mostly they are just trying to make their way in a world created by and run for people much older than them.
Lots. I manage many in my job and come across them in my day-to-day life.
You don't recognise my description because you're a Lefty and you agree with things like radical ecosocialism and Wokeness so don't even register it.
What are the tells of being into radical ecosocialism and wokeness as it has manifested itself in your office over the past few months by those young people?
Dilnot on LBC. "Structurally, quite a lot" of his plan has been implemented. But not generous enough with the proposed funding and we have no idea how much money will actually be forthcoming. As he points out we have been here before (in 2014 pushed through by the LibDems) and then had it pulled by the Tories.
Telegraph seems to be saying that anyone who enters the care system before Oct 2023 will not be eligible for the cap.
I can see that causing major issues.
I'm not sure what that means.
Does it mean that if someone enters care now and contributes now so that they, say, have contributed £20k up to Oct 2023 will be liable to contribute £86k from Oct 2023 and so will, in effect, be liable to contribute £106k?
Or does it mean that that person won't be eligible for the £86k cap at all?
I don't think it is actually clear, but the way the Telegraph are describing it, it is the latter. If you rack up even £20 of care costs in next two years you will not be eligible for the cap. Maybe this will be resolved but at moment I think it means a lot of people will now cling on for dear life, possibly in awful home conditions, to avoid starting their clock as it were.
That's absurd. Will cause massive issues as relatives desperately try to delay admissions. Massive sums are at stake here. People will be propping their oldies up with sellotape and twigs.
What if someone enters a care home in Sept 2023?
Edit: And, my mum's in a care home now. So what if I take her out and re-admit her in Oct 2023?
Yep. Massive issues. People will be clinging on as you say. If they notice this hidden bit of detail that is.
Have backbenchers woken up to this yet? I seem to recall there was a rumour that some were planning an amendment so that this all starts next April, but I bet they have been diverted off that by whips by now.
Christ, if not I hope they read this site.
The majority of care home admissions come in from hospital. In the run up to Oct 2023 hospitals will be under massive pressure from families, with possible threat of litigation, to keep the oldie in the hospital bed until after Oct 2023.
Dilnot on LBC. "Structurally, quite a lot" of his plan has been implemented. But not generous enough with the proposed funding and we have no idea how much money will actually be forthcoming. As he points out we have been here before (in 2014 pushed through by the LibDems) and then had it pulled by the Tories.
Telegraph seems to be saying that anyone who enters the care system before Oct 2023 will not be eligible for the cap.
I can see that causing major issues.
I'm not sure what that means.
Does it mean that if someone enters care now and contributes now so that they, say, have contributed £20k up to Oct 2023 will be liable to contribute £86k from Oct 2023 and so will, in effect, be liable to contribute £106k?
Or does it mean that that person won't be eligible for the £86k cap at all?
I don't think it is actually clear, but the way the Telegraph are describing it, it is the latter. If you rack up even £20 of care costs in next two years you will not be eligible for the cap. Maybe this will be resolved but at moment I think it means a lot of people will now cling on for dear life, possibly in awful home conditions, to avoid starting their clock as it were.
That's absurd. Will cause massive issues as relatives desperately try to delay admissions. Massive sums are at stake here. People will be propping their oldies up with sellotape and twigs.
What if someone enters a care home in Sept 2023?
Edit: And, my mum's in a care home now. So what if I take her out and re-admit her in Oct 2023?
On the channel I am opposed to sending migrants to any foreign country, other than back to France
I do not know how this is resolved as France is lukewarm on taking them back, but all the migrants must be kept safe whenever entering UK waters either by the border force or RNLI
The idea of us exporting migrants to far away places is just unacceptable
Genuine question. Why is "exporting migrants to far away places" unacceptable? Trying to understand everyones position on this. I'm not doubting you have a moral/ethical/practical view on this, nor am I questioning the validity of such views....
Maybe exporting is too strong but I just do not like the idea that illegal migrants are sent to far away places and that we cannot find a compassionate solution to this very difficult problem
Why is distance the issue? Is it the culture/level of development in the country they are being sent to?
i.e. you are OK with a European country?
I think the point is Europeans wouldn't touch it, because a detainee on their soil has rights by virtue of being on that soil, and anyway they'd charge the £1,000 a week it costs to keep people in prison, whereas the theory is Rwanda would charge 50p per prisoner per year and be a bit unruffled by the yooman rights side of things.
You are assuming that the Rwandans would put any effort into detaining them at all. Or even want to.
On the channel I am opposed to sending migrants to any foreign country, other than back to France
I do not know how this is resolved as France is lukewarm on taking them back, but all the migrants must be kept safe whenever entering UK waters either by the border force or RNLI
The idea of us exporting migrants to far away places is just unacceptable
Genuine question. Why is "exporting migrants to far away places" unacceptable? Trying to understand everyones position on this. I'm not doubting you have a moral/ethical/practical view on this, nor am I questioning the validity of such views....
Maybe exporting is too strong but I just do not like the idea that illegal migrants are sent to far away places and that we cannot find a compassionate solution to this very difficult problem
Send them to Scotland. If England has been overcome with xenophobia, Scotland hasn't. We don't have the devolved power to settle migrants and have asked for it.
40% of Scots think immigration to the UK has had a positive impact, 33% negative.
By contrast 49% of Londoners think immigration to the UK has had a positive impact, only 24% negative.
London is the part of the UK most supportive of immigration, not Scotland
Dilnot on LBC. "Structurally, quite a lot" of his plan has been implemented. But not generous enough with the proposed funding and we have no idea how much money will actually be forthcoming. As he points out we have been here before (in 2014 pushed through by the LibDems) and then had it pulled by the Tories.
Telegraph seems to be saying that anyone who enters the care system before Oct 2023 will not be eligible for the cap.
I can see that causing major issues.
I'm not sure what that means.
Does it mean that if someone enters care now and contributes now so that they, say, have contributed £20k up to Oct 2023 will be liable to contribute £86k from Oct 2023 and so will, in effect, be liable to contribute £106k?
Or does it mean that that person won't be eligible for the £86k cap at all?
I don't think it is actually clear, but the way the Telegraph are describing it, it is the latter. If you rack up even £20 of care costs in next two years you will not be eligible for the cap. Maybe this will be resolved but at moment I think it means a lot of people will now cling on for dear life, possibly in awful home conditions, to avoid starting their clock as it were.
That's absurd. Will cause massive issues as relatives desperately try to delay admissions. Massive sums are at stake here. People will be propping their oldies up with sellotape and twigs.
What if someone enters a care home in Sept 2023?
Edit: And, my mum's in a care home now. So what if I take her out and re-admit her in Oct 2023?
Yep. Massive issues. People will be clinging on as you say. If they notice this hidden bit of detail that is.
Have backbenchers woken up to this yet? I seem to recall there was a rumour that some were planning an amendment so that this all starts next April, but I bet they have been diverted off that by whips by now.
The delayed start date in the announcement was the one thing that was obvious would cause controversy and I expect it will have to be brought forward
It must be remembered that this is in England only so we have no idea how, or if, anything will change here in Wales
On the channel I am opposed to sending migrants to any foreign country, other than back to France
I do not know how this is resolved as France is lukewarm on taking them back, but all the migrants must be kept safe whenever entering UK waters either by the border force or RNLI
The idea of us exporting migrants to far away places is just unacceptable
Genuine question. Why is "exporting migrants to far away places" unacceptable? Trying to understand everyones position on this. I'm not doubting you have a moral/ethical/practical view on this, nor am I questioning the validity of such views....
Maybe exporting is too strong but I just do not like the idea that illegal migrants are sent to far away places and that we cannot find a compassionate solution to this very difficult problem
Why is distance the issue? Is it the culture/level of development in the country they are being sent to?
i.e. you are OK with a European country?
I think the point is Europeans wouldn't touch it, because a detainee on their soil has rights by virtue of being on that soil, and anyway they'd charge the £1,000 a week it costs to keep people in prison, whereas the theory is Rwanda would charge 50p per prisoner per year and be a bit unruffled by the yooman rights side of things.
You are assuming that the Rwandans would put any effort into detaining them at all. Or even want to.
On the channel I am opposed to sending migrants to any foreign country, other than back to France
I do not know how this is resolved as France is lukewarm on taking them back, but all the migrants must be kept safe whenever entering UK waters either by the border force or RNLI
The idea of us exporting migrants to far away places is just unacceptable
Genuine question. Why is "exporting migrants to far away places" unacceptable? Trying to understand everyones position on this. I'm not doubting you have a moral/ethical/practical view on this, nor am I questioning the validity of such views....
Maybe exporting is too strong but I just do not like the idea that illegal migrants are sent to far away places and that we cannot find a compassionate solution to this very difficult problem
Send them to Scotland. If England has been overcome with xenophobia, Scotland hasn't. We don't have the devolved power to settle migrants and have asked for it.
The Scots are dead lucky to have acquired such a forthright new spokesman.
I was saying the same thing when I was on Teesside. If some places don't like outsiders then fine. Other places are less twatty insular, have different needs etc etc.
I know that not everyone in Scotland agrees. But the government have just been re-elected to a 4th term on a whopping majority and this is the policy. We just need the power to enact it.
And this is the shame that we see in England. It isn't just the shame of such callous treatment of people. Its that they think their views are everyone's views. Not everyone thinks the forrin should be shipped off to African concentration camps or drowned or caught up in a naval incident as the French protect their borders.
That was something else my dad said which stuck with me a bit - any older person who isn't against this is a person without a conscience and has no empathy for the following generations. It matches up with my experience of posters in favour and against this policy on PB. He was ashamed of his own generation's selfishness tonight, he knows they've had it good with property prices being what they were when they were buying their houses in the 70s and 80s.
Well I am under 40 and disagree.
Yes here in the South housing is more expensive than it has been but I also know I will inherit far more than my parents or grandparents did too. So it works both ways
Phew. That's OK, then.
I don't but if anyone could convince me a 100% inheritance tax would be a good thing, its HYUFD.
People should be able to get on through their own efforts, not rely upon the inheritance from others.
I'm very comfortable with the inheritance thang; less so with self-proclaimed libertarians starting sentences "People should..."
What is wrong with a libertarian saying "People should be able to ..."
As a general phrase that's pretty much the fundamental principle of libertarianism - that people should be able to [insert here]. As opposed to saying they should have to, or should not be able to, saying they should be able to makes it their own choice.
Although (pedant mode) I guess with a 100% inheritance tax they wouldn't be able to choose to rely on an inheritance.
Of course and as I said I don't support that, but HYUFD makes it very tempting to support it. 😉
A 100% inheritance tax would turn the South to Labour, there is no way those on average incomes in London and the South East can afford to buy without an inheritance from parents or grandparents now.
So most would be renters without assets within a generation and reliant on a strong state unless a Tory government got in and reversed it before then
At which point, they might suddenly discover that the problem is the planning system / greenbelt, and vote to abolish it.
If the South ever gets below 50% home ownership, it becomes in most voters interest to demolish the planning system, build like crazy and crash the price of housing.
One of the interesting things about the economics of housing is that being so essential, it's very price sensitive to supply and demand. Ten people fighting over nine houses will result in the richest nine all putting at least more the maximum amount that the tenth man can afford. Ten people fighting over ten houses - whoever is willing to take the crummiest one pays nearly nothing, then it just comes down to the margin people will pay for the nicer ones. You only have to build one extra house to get from one of these scenarios to the other. I wonder how many extra houses it would take to collapse house prices in the SE back to the value of the agricultural land plus the building costs. Maybe a million - possibly half that, especially if it was obvious that anyone who wanted to pay the minimum could just buy a lump of farmland and build on it.
You've touched upon a very important point.
The wealth of Brits is tied up in their properties. If you collapse the housing price, you destroy the savings of millions of people. They will increase their savings rate to compensate (see Spain 2011).
It's a very fine line the government needs to walk.
You say that like its a bad thing. Our savings rate has been too long for a long time and is why we've run a long-term unsustainable structural trade deficit is it not?
Plus most people will never cash out their "savings" on their house, so its a faux saving anyway which completely warps and distorts both our economics and our politics.
A house is first and foremost somewhere to live. Making it harder for people to live, or harder for people to move about going where the job opportunities are etc just diminishes the economy.
And if people didn't think that they had a windfall lined up in a property inheritance then maybe we could have more sensible discussions about these things. The notion that some have that they need an inheritance, to pay for a house, because house prices are high, so therefore we need to keep prices high, so they can get their inheritance . . . is a rather circular and flawed logic. If house prices come down, you could get the house without an inheritance - and you'd no longer "need" that inheritance.
PS the one catastrophic thing with collapsing house prices is if you get negative equity, which is why we need inflation to mask the fall in prices so people don't get negative equity.
Spot on again. You are making a disturbing habit of this.
Apart from the bit about inflation. Philip never writes the explanation as to why rising prices is good for home owners (that interest rates will never go up and that pay will go up too). I think it’s brave to assume that pay would go up, though I think it’s safe to say interest rates will never go above 1.0% ever again.
"I think it’s safe to say interest rates will never go above 1.0% ever again."
I'm happy to offer you pretty good odds on that.
The "ever again" was hyperbole, but in what circumstances do you envisage the BoE putting up rates above 0.75%?
I started work in May 2009. In my working life the base rate has never been above 0.75%. We had serious inflation in 2011 (my commuting costs increased by 40%), and the BoE did nothing. The reality is, there are a lot of people with big mortgages who simply could not afford to pay them if the base rate goes much above 1%.
I think the only circumstances in which the BoE acts is if there is a run on the pound.
I paid 12% on my first mortgage in the nineties. Those were the negative equity days of hangover after the Thatcher House price boom.
I paid 19% on my first mortgage, shortly after Thatcher became PM.
Yes, I remember my dad being very squeezed at the same time.
There was much more inflation though, and the principle from the Seventies to the Noughties was to buy the most expensive house possible, pay eye watering mortgages and let inflation reduce the mortgage to affordable levels after a number of years. It worked to a fashion for both me and my dad.
Nowadays there are eye-watering mortgages, but no inflation to reduce the debt, so they stay eye watering.
When we bought our current house the mortgage was right on the edge of affordability and we really struggled towards the end of each month but within a few years some modest inflation and increased nominal earnings made it very affordable and we were able to start paying down the capital. My daughter has been determined to overpay her mortgage and reduce the debt too but it has been so much harder for her with the very slow increases in nominal wages.
The more I think about the more angry I am about the amount of tax young people are paying.
And I find lots of young people really annoying, particularly their narcissism, veganism and off-the-scale Wokeness - but it's still totally wrong and they don't deserve it.
How many young people do you know? I think of my kids and their mates, as well as the under-40s I work with, and I don’t recognise your description of them. Mostly they are just trying to make their way in a world created by and run for people much older than them.
Lots. I manage many in my job and come across them in my day-to-day life.
You don't recognise my description because you're a Lefty and you agree with things like radical ecosocialism and Wokeness so don't even register it.
What are the tells of being into radical ecosocialism and wokeness as it has manifested itself in your office over the past few months by those young people?
"Can I have a day off to go and protest for XR?"
I think that covers both.
You sure they're not just winding you up ?
(And why do you get irritated by vegans ?)
Some people get irritated by vegans because they feel a bit threatened I think. Vegans tend to hold their dietary choice as an identity appendage which they readily display. To some people the implication they take is that the non-vegan is being accused of being less moral in comparison.
I was never a vegan but was a vegetarian for many years. My view was that this is nothing to do with anyone else.
Just over a third of voters are in favour of a second independence referendum within the next two years, a poll has found.
The Survation poll carried out for the pro-UK campaign group Scotland in Union found only 38 per cent of those surveyed want a second vote during the timetable set out by First Minister Nicola Sturgeon.
Just over half (52 per cent) said there should not be a referendum in the next two years, while 10 per cent said they didn't know.
Setting out the Scottish Government's programme for government on Tuesday, Sturgeon said she had instructed civil servants to begin work on a “detailed prospectus” for independence, with the aim of holding a second vote – nine years since the last – by the end of 2023.
On the channel I am opposed to sending migrants to any foreign country, other than back to France
I do not know how this is resolved as France is lukewarm on taking them back, but all the migrants must be kept safe whenever entering UK waters either by the border force or RNLI
The idea of us exporting migrants to far away places is just unacceptable
Genuine question. Why is "exporting migrants to far away places" unacceptable? Trying to understand everyones position on this. I'm not doubting you have a moral/ethical/practical view on this, nor am I questioning the validity of such views....
Maybe exporting is too strong but I just do not like the idea that illegal migrants are sent to far away places and that we cannot find a compassionate solution to this very difficult problem
Why is distance the issue? Is it the culture/level of development in the country they are being sent to?
i.e. you are OK with a European country?
I think the point is Europeans wouldn't touch it, because a detainee on their soil has rights by virtue of being on that soil, and anyway they'd charge the £1,000 a week it costs to keep people in prison, whereas the theory is Rwanda would charge 50p per prisoner per year and be a bit unruffled by the yooman rights side of things.
You are assuming that the Rwandans would put any effort into detaining them at all. Or even want to.
Good point.
IIRC (from what a friend living in Denmark has told me - an immigrant going through the Danish immigration process, no less) the Danish proposal was that they would have an asylum processing centre in Rwanda (or elsewhere). This would just be a centre - the asylum seekers would not be detained there. Rwanda would simply allow them entry.
Dilnot on LBC. "Structurally, quite a lot" of his plan has been implemented. But not generous enough with the proposed funding and we have no idea how much money will actually be forthcoming. As he points out we have been here before (in 2014 pushed through by the LibDems) and then had it pulled by the Tories.
Telegraph seems to be saying that anyone who enters the care system before Oct 2023 will not be eligible for the cap.
I can see that causing major issues.
I'm not sure what that means.
Does it mean that if someone enters care now and contributes now so that they, say, have contributed £20k up to Oct 2023 will be liable to contribute £86k from Oct 2023 and so will, in effect, be liable to contribute £106k?
Or does it mean that that person won't be eligible for the £86k cap at all?
I don't think it is actually clear, but the way the Telegraph are describing it, it is the latter. If you rack up even £20 of care costs in next two years you will not be eligible for the cap. Maybe this will be resolved but at moment I think it means a lot of people will now cling on for dear life, possibly in awful home conditions, to avoid starting their clock as it were.
That's absurd. Will cause massive issues as relatives desperately try to delay admissions. Massive sums are at stake here. People will be propping their oldies up with sellotape and twigs.
What if someone enters a care home in Sept 2023?
Edit: And, my mum's in a care home now. So what if I take her out and re-admit her in Oct 2023?
Yep. Massive issues. People will be clinging on as you say. If they notice this hidden bit of detail that is.
Have backbenchers woken up to this yet? I seem to recall there was a rumour that some were planning an amendment so that this all starts next April, but I bet they have been diverted off that by whips by now.
Christ, if not I hope they read this site.
The majority of care home admissions come in from hospital. In the run up to Oct 2023 hospitals will be under massive pressure from families, with possible threat of litigation, to keep the oldie in the hospital bed until after Oct 2023.
I would just say that any admission to a care home from hospital that is medically required, but excluding dementia will have the charges paid under the NHS continuing care scheme by the NHS
Mask wearing amongst Airedale commuters now down to around 10%.
Was more like 80% two weeks ago.
That's bonkers.
Airedales are not the most docile of animals and it's surely better to keep them muzzled.
Chuckle.
Going back to Sandy's point, I've noticed a similar (though not so pronounced) decline among Trafford shoppers. Tesco down from about 60% to about 30%. Sainsburys down from about 90% to about 50%. Local shops down from about 50% to about 5%. The Trafford Centre has been the most pronounced: down from about 60% to about 5%. People are finding that the world doesn't end if they take off their mask.
As long as we don't mind sustaining 40k new cases a day...
Since last May’s election four polls of vote intentions in a second independence referendum have been published. On average (after leaving aside Don’t Knows), they put Yes on 48% and No on 52%. These figures are exactly the same as those recorded on average by the five polls conducted closest to polling day on May 6th, suggesting that little has happened to public attitudes during the relative quietude of summer. On the other hand, it means that support for Yes is still adrift of the average of 53% recorded in the polls between May and August last year.
This picture suggests that it may well not be in the interests of the independence movement to pursue an early referendum. The chances that any such ballot would produce a majority for independence are certainly lower than they were a year ago, and the possibility of defeat is one that Nicola Sturgeon cannot afford to ignore.
People who don’t follow the rules will be turned back. People who do are welcome
People always conflate wanting to restrict migration levels to a hatred of immigrants.
To be sure there are people using the former as cover for the latter. But its certainly not all or most.
It is not inherently wrong for any country to decide how many people should immigrate and how they do it, the debate is around numbers and policies (eg how harsh to be about boat arrivals), not that any immigration at any time is wrong.
We see so often people think it is really clever and funny to suggest support for sports stars and others is incompatible with seeking to restrict hundreds of people arriving illegally in boats, but it's just not true.
I dont even support a strict immigration policy and prefer light touch even to the issue of mass illegal immigration, but it's just infuriating to pretend that if someone does take a harder view theyd, for example, they must have been against someone legally immigrating.
Thats just nonsense to make someone feel better, and gives an easy defence of pointing out its nonsense. Far better, as Rochdale has done, to not make that specious claim but just focus on if the current position is wrong.
Border Force authorised to turn back migrants, 50 years of Genesis and Radacando! Another day in Normalania.
Will there now be a race between BF vessels and the RNLI to reach the boat people?
I should imagine that the Border Force boats will patrol the maritime boundary to try to catch the dinghies, the occupants of the dinghies will throw themselves into the water (or just fall in when the authorities try to shunt or tow their pathetic, flimsy vessels back towards France,) and the Border Force officers will then be obliged to fish them out.
Any that get through the screen will then be met by RNLI welcome committees instead. So, it'll make no difference to anything. Just one more example of something-must-be-done-ism.
Its stupid and dangerous to be messing around with people in the water. Anyone in the water should be removed from the water.
The only sustainable way to deal with it is to determine what happens next once they're out of the water. If they know they'll end up in the UK, people will continue doing it, risking more lives on a very dangerous and deadly crossing.
If they know that they'll end up in somewhere like Nauru or Papua New Guinea as has been done by the Australian Labor and Liberal governments, or Rwanda as has been proposed by Denmark's Social Democrat government, then that would actually stop the dinghies getting in the water in the first place.
Yes, but as I understand it neither PNG nor Rwanda are willing.
If Rwanda are willing would you be happy for the UK to follow Denmark's Social Democrat government in doing that?
Why Rwanda? Why not Ramsgate?
What would the function be? To determine whether they have a legitimate claim to be in the UK.
Yes? Stay. No? Whatever the protocol is.
Where this processing happens shouldn't worry you.
No, the proposal is to allow asylum-seekers the chance of a new life in Rwanda, paid for by the British government.
Because they’re fleeing persecution, rather than trying to become economic migrants, right?
I'm no international lawyer but I can't see British involvement, if it is necessary, being limited to such a role.
Its a policy already successfully implemented by the Australians (under both Liberals and Labor), and being developed by the Danish Social Democrats.
Why wouldn't it be suitable for Britain and what international courts would challenge it under international law?
I have no idea as I said IANAIL. But if the Brits are involved then I must believe that there will be some kind of obligation to act beyond redirecting them to a sub-Saharan African country.
And as per the Danish proposals, I can only find articles saying that asylum seekers will be processed abroad. Nothing that they will be given asylum abroad.
And if this was the case then I like the proposal even less.
Why would Brits have different obligations than the Danes, Aussies and others that have already done this or are looking into it? Plus of course Parliament is sovereign, if Parliament passes an Act saying this is the process and there is no right to appeal that before people have been put in a plane and transferred then that's the law and the courts should follow the rule of law.
Rwanda is being spoken about with Denmark because they're already doing it for other countries too, its something the Rwandan government is interested in because they view it as a way to get money into the country.
If Rwanda gets more development, if it keeps the rule of law (as nobody can be sent anywhere without the rule of law) and if people fleeing persecution get somewhere safe to be, and if people stop dying because dinghies crossing the Channel is deadly and unsafe then isn't that a win/win/win/win?
Of course if people don't want asylum in Rwanda they always have the option of not fleeing France in a dinghy - and the UK can take more genuine asylum seekers through safe, legitimate and legal routes.
As for not thinking that the Danes are proposing that those granted asylum remain in Rwanda what did you think the bold bit of your quote earlier meant: "to asylum centres in a partner country for case reviews and possibly their protection in that country".
On the channel I am opposed to sending migrants to any foreign country, other than back to France
I do not know how this is resolved as France is lukewarm on taking them back, but all the migrants must be kept safe whenever entering UK waters either by the border force or RNLI
The idea of us exporting migrants to far away places is just unacceptable
Genuine question. Why is "exporting migrants to far away places" unacceptable? Trying to understand everyones position on this. I'm not doubting you have a moral/ethical/practical view on this, nor am I questioning the validity of such views....
Maybe exporting is too strong but I just do not like the idea that illegal migrants are sent to far away places and that we cannot find a compassionate solution to this very difficult problem
Why is distance the issue? Is it the culture/level of development in the country they are being sent to?
i.e. you are OK with a European country?
I think the point is Europeans wouldn't touch it, because a detainee on their soil has rights by virtue of being on that soil, and anyway they'd charge the £1,000 a week it costs to keep people in prison, whereas the theory is Rwanda would charge 50p per prisoner per year and be a bit unruffled by the yooman rights side of things.
You are assuming that the Rwandans would put any effort into detaining them at all. Or even want to.
Good point.
IIRC (from what a friend living in Denmark has told me - an immigrant going through the Danish immigration process, no less) the Danish proposal was that they would have an asylum processing centre in Rwanda (or elsewhere). This would just be a centre - the asylum seekers would not be detained there. Rwanda would simply allow them entry.
Yep this is what the Guardian article seemed to be saying. It would be a processing centre. In which case my original question still stands - why not Ramsgate instead of Rwanda.
Mr. Pioneers, I think I can see a flaw in your plan.
Assuming the migrants have the power of locomotion, they might just... move.
Sure! But they want to settle in the UK. Let them. They have a choice of being welcomed and naturalised and settled north of the wall or despised and pilloried and kept in penury unable to work south of the wall.
On the channel I am opposed to sending migrants to any foreign country, other than back to France
I do not know how this is resolved as France is lukewarm on taking them back, but all the migrants must be kept safe whenever entering UK waters either by the border force or RNLI
The idea of us exporting migrants to far away places is just unacceptable
Genuine question. Why is "exporting migrants to far away places" unacceptable? Trying to understand everyones position on this. I'm not doubting you have a moral/ethical/practical view on this, nor am I questioning the validity of such views....
Maybe exporting is too strong but I just do not like the idea that illegal migrants are sent to far away places and that we cannot find a compassionate solution to this very difficult problem
Sending them back to France only means that they will try again. And again. Assuming they are economic migrants I'm unsure why you are opposed to returning them to their origin?
I am just unhappy with the idea of sending them to camps in Africa
While I realise that PP's parents were not formally part of the Asian exodus from Uganda, they seem to have had the foresight to see what was going to happen, so could reasonably be considered part of it. As I recall (and I helped furnish a house of two) while there was some opposition to them coming, they were seen as partly at least our responsibility.
IIRC Enoch Powell supported accepting the Ugandan exodus, on the grounds that we'd promised and not breaking our word took precedence over any other consideration.
To try to respond honestly to Malmesbury: I'm not totally opposed to transfer to a compliant recipient country which is paid well for hosting the migrants, but it should be linked to good monitoring of conditions and preferably some sort of option to try to find a settled life in that country. In that case, it might be better than the grim camps on the borders of trouble spots. I'd be opposed to sending them to a camp with bad food and health provisions, violence from guards and possible unrest from local people. The reality seems much more likely to be the latter, so I'm against it until persuaded otherwise.
A consistent problem is that areas suffering from population loss should objectively welcome some newcomers, but they often are notably unfriendly to incomers (Saxony, for example).
Border Force authorised to turn back migrants, 50 years of Genesis and Radacando! Another day in Normalania.
Will there now be a race between BF vessels and the RNLI to reach the boat people?
I should imagine that the Border Force boats will patrol the maritime boundary to try to catch the dinghies, the occupants of the dinghies will throw themselves into the water (or just fall in when the authorities try to shunt or tow their pathetic, flimsy vessels back towards France,) and the Border Force officers will then be obliged to fish them out.
Any that get through the screen will then be met by RNLI welcome committees instead. So, it'll make no difference to anything. Just one more example of something-must-be-done-ism.
Its stupid and dangerous to be messing around with people in the water. Anyone in the water should be removed from the water.
The only sustainable way to deal with it is to determine what happens next once they're out of the water. If they know they'll end up in the UK, people will continue doing it, risking more lives on a very dangerous and deadly crossing.
If they know that they'll end up in somewhere like Nauru or Papua New Guinea as has been done by the Australian Labor and Liberal governments, or Rwanda as has been proposed by Denmark's Social Democrat government, then that would actually stop the dinghies getting in the water in the first place.
Yes, but as I understand it neither PNG nor Rwanda are willing.
If Rwanda are willing would you be happy for the UK to follow Denmark's Social Democrat government in doing that?
Why Rwanda? Why not Ramsgate?
What would the function be? To determine whether they have a legitimate claim to be in the UK.
Yes? Stay. No? Whatever the protocol is.
Where this processing happens shouldn't worry you.
No, the proposal is to allow asylum-seekers the chance of a new life in Rwanda, paid for by the British government.
Because they’re fleeing persecution, rather than trying to become economic migrants, right?
I'm no international lawyer but I can't see British involvement, if it is necessary, being limited to such a role.
Its a policy already successfully implemented by the Australians (under both Liberals and Labor), and being developed by the Danish Social Democrats.
Why wouldn't it be suitable for Britain and what international courts would challenge it under international law?
The Australian policy worked because it was combined with tow backs and because it was possible to remove refugees to PNG/ Nauru without them ever setting flip flop in the Australian migration zone and hence access to legal redress
Neither of those factors apply in the channel
Didn't they concentrate [sic] them in a camp at Woomera? Many, many miles from everywhere and all around there is nothing in the way of even fuck all apart from Woomera town and the odd concrete rocket launch pad (which is why Woomera was built, of course).
As I have bored on about quite a lot recently excessive consumption and poor investment leading to a major trade deficit is our largest economic problem by far. We need to recalibrate our economy by reducing consumer debt, reducing government debt, encouraging savings and utilising those savings as investment.
I think that extremely low interest rates such as we have at the moment are a positive hindrance in most of these objectives. Consumer debt is generally cheap (not for those who fall behind on credit cards of course) and saving seems pointless. In theory very low interest rates should make investment more attractive since the cost of capital is low but what seems to happen is that existing businesses which are using sites survive and this reduces investment opportunities.
Low interest rates have also distorted asset prices as the expected rate of return on an asset falls. This has greatly increased wealth inequality and hugely distorted the housing market making it more difficult for young people to become Conservative voters.
So we need higher interest rates. Given that we have had these distortions ever since 2008 this is going to be a very difficult and painful challenge but the BoE should be getting on with it not only increasing base rates by 0.25% but also by being clear about the direction of travel. We are currently having what is probably a blip in inflation. Rather than "seeing through it" the Bank should be taking the opportunity to move interest rates up.
Yes, it's quite the conundrum. Ultra low interest rates plus QE - a policy combination which can be termed Money For Old Rope - is simultaneously poisoning and propping us up. To "get off it" without a crashing downer is going to be (imo) next to impossible.
Comments
Because they’re fleeing persecution, rather than trying to become economic migrants, right?
If it is zero then we need to conscript them into the Navy immediately. They would be geniuses in small boats....
"mu"
Which would have thrown the interviewer a bit....
240 volts has a taste. Quite different to 50 volts.
https://twitter.com/Itwitius/status/1434197588958498816
Russia are blocking VPNs. Suggestion it could make it more likely, in the future, the Kremlin could cut off the old interweb.
The Social Democrat proposal is if they have a legitimate claim to asylum then they get that asylum in Rwanda, paid for and facilitated by Denmark.
In Australia processing the applications in Nauru caused the number of crossings to drop to zero.
Did their parents and grandparents not work hard as well? Did they not raise their children to work hard? Truly a unique and special generation.....
Was more like 80% two weeks ago.
No parliament can bind its successors.
This is classic kicking the can down the road, smoke and mirrors, not even a serious attempt to tackle social care.
That's an offensive and fallacious Godwin.
Why wouldn't it be suitable for Britain and what international courts would challenge it under international law?
So not sure about the "they get asylum in Rwanda" part.
I can see that causing major issues.
Airedales are not the most docile of animals and it's surely better to keep them muzzled.
Neither of those factors apply in the channel
Frankly going off the horrors reported from the Australian camps the desperate asylum seekers crossing the channel would be better having the smirking monster drown them than preside over them in years of incarceration for profit at the lowest cost.
I think that covers both.
Does it mean that if someone enters care now and contributes now so that they, say, have contributed £20k up to Oct 2023 will be liable to contribute £86k from Oct 2023 and so will, in effect, be liable to contribute £106k?
Or does it mean that that person won't be eligible for the £86k cap at all?
This solves
- the Navy manning issue
- carries on the multi-cultural traditions of the RN
- gives the people in question a job, benefits etc. In addition to a safe place to live.
- they don't get to touch UK soil, hence solving the legal issues.
What's not to like?
Or rather: "Can I have a day off to go and protest for XR you filthy capitalist running dog pig" surely?
I do not know how this is resolved as France is lukewarm on taking them back, but all the migrants must be kept safe whenever entering UK waters either by the border force or RNLI
The idea of us exporting migrants to far away places is just unacceptable
And as per the Danish proposals, I can only find articles saying that asylum seekers will be processed abroad. Nothing that they will be given asylum abroad.
And if this was the case then I like the proposal even less.
Labour should go all in here instead of sitting back.
@Sunil_Prasannan
‘On this day 40 years ago England’s hopes of qualifying for the World Cup looked slim after they took “a hell of a beating” away to Norway:
England’s 2-1 defeat was shown live on ITV. Ron Greenwood’s side now needed others to do them a favour - and they did.
#ENG #NOR #OnThisDay’
https://twitter.com/1980sheaven/status/1435850831815925760?s=21
Make him into a useful citizen with some Proper Hard Work.
{/Red Faced Bloke In Pub Mode}
Your problem (one of them) is an unusually optimistic view of human nature (other than homeowners and farmers). I would on the whole sooner be dead than interned in a Rwandan holding camp as an unwanted national of a different African country. Watermelon smiles would be in short supply.
I would be interested as to whom were the abstainers.
Mr Johnson nonetheless appears very pleased with himself over this latest wizard wheeze.
As someone who has a 92 year old family member who one would have assumed would be a beneficiary of this social care package, I am disappointed, as they are not. I continue to supplement the care home costs until the family home is sold.
If the South ever gets below 50% home ownership, it becomes in most voters interest to demolish the planning system, build like crazy and crash the price of housing.
One of the interesting things about the economics of housing is that being so essential, it's very price sensitive to supply and demand. Ten people fighting over nine houses will result in the richest nine all putting at least more the maximum amount that the tenth man can afford.
Ten people fighting over ten houses - whoever is willing to take the crummiest one pays nearly nothing, then it just comes down to the margin people will pay for the nicer ones. You only have to build one extra house to get from one of these scenarios to the other.
I wonder how many extra houses it would take to collapse house prices in the SE back to the value of the agricultural land plus the building costs. Maybe a million - possibly half that, especially if it was obvious that anyone who wanted to pay the minimum could just buy a lump of farmland and build on it.'
No, they do not want the entirety of the South East turned into a concrete jungle and urban sprawl either.
Plus unless you end all foreign investment in London property, severely restrict immigration and ensure new affordable homes are restricted to local first time buyers who have lived there for 7 years or more only new housing alone would not solve the problem
Edit: I have now looked at the actual document released by Johnson for the plans. It states:
"from October 2023, no eligible person starting adult social care will have to pay more than £86,000 for personal care over their lifetime."
My bold. looks like telegrpah have it right.
i.e. you are OK with a European country?
What if someone enters a care home in Sept 2023?
Edit: And, my mum's in a care home now. So what if I take her out and re-admit her in Oct 2023?
If he voted with his conscience that is up to him, still a clear government win
Have backbenchers woken up to this yet? I seem to recall there was a rumour that some were planning an amendment so that this all starts next April, but I bet they have been diverted off that by whips by now.
As I recall (and I helped furnish a house of two) while there was some opposition to them coming, they were seen as partly at least our responsibility.
Going back to Sandy's point, I've noticed a similar (though not so pronounced) decline among Trafford shoppers. Tesco down from about 60% to about 30%. Sainsburys down from about 90% to about 50%. Local shops down from about 50% to about 5%. The Trafford Centre has been the most pronounced: down from about 60% to about 5%. People are finding that the world doesn't end if they take off their mask.
(And why do you get irritated by vegans ?)
The majority of care home admissions come in from hospital. In the run up to Oct 2023 hospitals will be under massive pressure from families, with possible threat of litigation, to keep the oldie in the hospital bed until after Oct 2023.
Assuming the migrants have the power of locomotion, they might just... move.
https://inews.co.uk/news/world/china-kidnapped-ex-wife-years-xi-jinping-regime-threats-1188562
By contrast 49% of Londoners think immigration to the UK has had a positive impact, only 24% negative.
London is the part of the UK most supportive of immigration, not Scotland
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/oxitso0pnv/YouGov survey results - immigration.pdf
It must be remembered that this is in England only so we have no idea how, or if, anything will change here in Wales
twattyinsular, have different needs etc etc.I know that not everyone in Scotland agrees. But the government have just been re-elected to a 4th term on a whopping majority and this is the policy. We just need the power to enact it.
And this is the shame that we see in England. It isn't just the shame of such callous treatment of people. Its that they think their views are everyone's views. Not everyone thinks the forrin should be shipped off to African concentration camps or drowned or caught up in a naval incident as the French protect their borders.
I was never a vegan but was a vegetarian for many years. My view was that this is nothing to do with anyone else.
The Survation poll carried out for the pro-UK campaign group Scotland in Union found only 38 per cent of those surveyed want a second vote during the timetable set out by First Minister Nicola Sturgeon.
Just over half (52 per cent) said there should not be a referendum in the next two years, while 10 per cent said they didn't know.
Setting out the Scottish Government's programme for government on Tuesday, Sturgeon said she had instructed civil servants to begin work on a “detailed prospectus” for independence, with the aim of holding a second vote – nine years since the last – by the end of 2023.
https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,poll-majority-of-scots-opposed-to-second-independence-referendum-in-2023
https://twitter.com/scotlandinunion/status/1435860665273626625?s=20
https://twitter.com/scotlandinunion/status/1435856850872852483?s=20
This picture suggests that it may well not be in the interests of the independence movement to pursue an early referendum. The chances that any such ballot would produce a majority for independence are certainly lower than they were a year ago, and the possibility of defeat is one that Nicola Sturgeon cannot afford to ignore.
https://whatscotlandthinks.org/2021/09/a-question-of-timing/
To be sure there are people using the former as cover for the latter. But its certainly not all or most.
It is not inherently wrong for any country to decide how many people should immigrate and how they do it, the debate is around numbers and policies (eg how harsh to be about boat arrivals), not that any immigration at any time is wrong.
We see so often people think it is really clever and funny to suggest support for sports stars and others is incompatible with seeking to restrict hundreds of people arriving illegally in boats, but it's just not true.
I dont even support a strict immigration policy and prefer light touch even to the issue of mass illegal immigration, but it's just infuriating to pretend that if someone does take a harder view theyd, for example, they must have been against someone legally immigrating.
Thats just nonsense to make someone feel better, and gives an easy defence of pointing out its nonsense. Far better, as Rochdale has done, to not make that specious claim but just focus on if the current position is wrong.
"Leading Chinese dissident and artist Ai Weiwei has said he was told by Credit Suisse that his foundation's bank account in Switzerland would be closed over his 'criminal record' in China." https://bbc.com/news/business-58484447… Amazing how China can get overseas surrogates to act as thugs.
https://twitter.com/tedgioia/status/1435830296637759493
Rwanda is being spoken about with Denmark because they're already doing it for other countries too, its something the Rwandan government is interested in because they view it as a way to get money into the country.
If Rwanda gets more development, if it keeps the rule of law (as nobody can be sent anywhere without the rule of law) and if people fleeing persecution get somewhere safe to be, and if people stop dying because dinghies crossing the Channel is deadly and unsafe then isn't that a win/win/win/win?
Of course if people don't want asylum in Rwanda they always have the option of not fleeing France in a dinghy - and the UK can take more genuine asylum seekers through safe, legitimate and legal routes.
As for not thinking that the Danes are proposing that those granted asylum remain in Rwanda what did you think the bold bit of your quote earlier meant: "to asylum centres in a partner country for case reviews and possibly their protection in that country".
To try to respond honestly to Malmesbury: I'm not totally opposed to transfer to a compliant recipient country which is paid well for hosting the migrants, but it should be linked to good monitoring of conditions and preferably some sort of option to try to find a settled life in that country. In that case, it might be better than the grim camps on the borders of trouble spots. I'd be opposed to sending them to a camp with bad food and health provisions, violence from guards and possible unrest from local people. The reality seems much more likely to be the latter, so I'm against it until persuaded otherwise.
A consistent problem is that areas suffering from population loss should objectively welcome some newcomers, but they often are notably unfriendly to incomers (Saxony, for example).