Howdy, Stranger!

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

Why are the Tories leading in the polls? – politicalbetting.com

12346

Comments

  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 29,523
    Cookie said:

    On thread - really, really good article by @Cyclefree .

    I'm particularly intrigued with 'Boris isn't perfect, but doesn't pretend to be'. I think this is a useful insight. The electorate can forgive a lot of failings in politicians if those politicians didn't claim those virtues in the first place. I always like the example of Alan Johnson, who was unusually comfortable to answer a question with 'I don't know'. Conversely, the most ire is reserved for those politicians who fail to meet the standards they set themselves (Matt Hancock).

    To Labour's problems, something @ManchesterKurt said yesterday set me thinking. He was talking about the smoking ban - how the protestations beforehand led to nothing and that we all now accept smoke-free pubs. Now, I think Kurt is from the same part of Manchester as me (same road, IIRC) - and it's true that from our point of view, in middle-class suburban south Manchester, pubs and bars have got better and better over the past 15 years - bad ones have closed and good ones have opened. But if you live in somewhere less fashionable, you have only seen closures - basic but functional pubs, working mens clubs and social clubs have disappeared from the scene. Though we non-smoking middle classes don't see it, the smoking ban caused a tremendous amount of disillusionment with Labour among its traditional support. (John Reid got this, even if the party's middle class base did not). Moreover, Labour is a communitarian party: it's ethos can only thrive in a country where people view themselves communally. Take that away, and the case for communitariansim becomes harder. In fact, I bet you could map net closure of licensed premises and that it would correspond almost exactly to those places where the Labour vote has fallen the furthest in the past fifteen years.

    Smoking and Brexit are the same issue. A proposal which Labour activists are convinced will do serious harm to Labour voters who must be too stupid to not think the same.

    FWIW the smoking ban had to happen - whether traditional WWC Labour voters liked a smoke and a fag down the working men's club it was killing them. But if people want the freedom to do and think as they see fit they aren't going to reward you for stopping them and patronising them at the same time.

    The Brexit battle was lost when both sides refused to compromise to the EFTA/EEA route. Positioning Brexit as "all the benefits of membership but we get to make the decisions and keep our money" could have been a vote winner. Instead we had absolutism - and yes I was one of the absolutists. A mistake.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,639

    T U nbridge Wells. T O nbridge is a separate town nearby.
    Thanks, I live in the TN postcode area in Kent, it was an autocorrect typo.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,751

    The channel connects the UK to France/the EU.

    What persecution are refugees facing in France/the EU?

    Should we be bombing them to seek regime change in your eyes?
    Nah, the French deserve Macron.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 27,275
    Taz said:

    What a shock, he’s banging on about ‘migrants’ in the channel. He means refugees fleeing persecution but that’s a different story.
    Well I know Macron's France has its problems but is it really persecuting its people ?
  • CookieCookie Posts: 14,636
    tlg86 said:

    She was doing unpopular (but the right) things. Did she not say that if you're not behind mid-term, you're doing something wrong? Obviously COVID is rather different to normal times, but I'd say if the government doesn't turn off the taps over the next few months, they are very much doing something wrong.
    Which raises my other minor quibble with Cyclefree's piece - the 'embracing the right'. Because it's very difficult to pin down exactly what the government is doing which is right wing. On tax and spend, it is to the left of any government since Wilson. On immigration, the criticisms have all been too much, rather than too little - both on the channel crossings and on closing the borders to control coronavirus. It's hard to make a convincing case that this is a right wing government. It's certainly doesn't seem to be to the right of the electorate on any meaningful measure. I kind of know what's being got at, but...
    The government have been breathtakingly authoritarian in their use of restrictions intended to control coronavirus (although again, possibly not as authoritarian as the electorate would like). But when the main opposition parties have been urging them to be more authoritarian, again, it's difficult to make the case that this is a government of the right.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 29,523

    Dunno about the British electorate, but the Express obviously thinks their readers are moronic.


    And why not? As apparently people aren't paying attention to Clown stupidity, why not feed that stupidity? The National up here and the Express down there are the dumbest newspapers possible.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,105
    philiph said:

    WHY ARE THE TORIES LEADING IN THE POLLS?

    This must be one of the easiest questions ever asked.

    Because poll respondents have the wisdom of crowds and the collective desire to gain entertainment from watching the left writhe in flummoxed confused enraged confounded dismay, to see the sensitive flowers on the left emotionally challenged.

    The wisdom of crowds does satire very well, and it seems like a just reward for sitting on line tapping out responses to endless polls and surveys. .

    Sir

    I read your post four times and found myself in flummoxed confused enraged confounded dismay that I couldn't understand a word of it.

    Yours

    Emotionally Challenged Sensitive flower of the Left
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,639
    Here's some "real world" data regarding the AZ vaccine effectiveness against various VOC's, including Beta. It remains a shame the amount of crap AZ gets given these results.

    https://t.co/YF90ug2B3q?amp=1
  • PJHPJH Posts: 756
    IshmaelZ said:

    "Illiberal and incoherent" are just boo words, though. There's a libertarian case in favour of some versions of vaccine certs. I positively want to go to venues which insist on vaccine certs. If there are venues which positively want to insist on them, why should authority come between us?
    I'm less bothered about a voluntary way of proving vaccine status. Then you can go to a venue that requires it, and I will go somewhere else. Johnson is making it mandatory for certain types of venue (and then watch the scope creep).
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 44,872
    tlg86 said:


    Obviously I agree with everything you say as it is good for people to have basic skills as it would help their own lives a lot and may save the state some money. By the way, as an aside, we absolutely should teach kids about how betting works - how to convert odds (fractional and decimal) into percentages, how bookies win, etc. etc.

    But I'm a bit sceptical about what it would do to our economy. I hate to say this, but I don't think there is much of a relationship between our wealth and literacy and numeracy rates. So long as enough kids do well and can fill the jobs that require a decent education, then the economy is what it is. Ultimately, there are only so many good jobs to go around.

    I'm unsure 'there are only so many good jobs to go around' is true. Say 18% of people are functionally illiterate. Of those, there are a few who, for various reasons, will always find literacy an issue. So let's say 15% of people are illiterate. That does not mean they cannot contribute to society; they can hold down jobs, fake things, get others to sign leaving cards, etc. But they will never reach their potential.

    Amongst that 15% there will be people who, if they were literate, could do greater things. Perhaps even great things. A few might start up businesses that employ people. Perhaps amongst them is the next Gates, Bezos, or Sarah Gilbert. They might start companies that employ thousands.

    If they're illiterate or innumerate, they won't. From a more right-wing point of view, many will be burdens on the taxpayers.

    Reducing functional illiteracy and innumeracy makes sense from a moral, societal and economic point of view. The main reasons that it's not being tackled are that it's hard, and the rewards are a decade or more in the future.
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 2,929
    tlg86 said:

    She was doing unpopular (but the right) things. Did she not say that if you're not behind mid-term, you're doing something wrong? Obviously COVID is rather different to normal times, but I'd say if the government doesn't turn off the taps over the next few months, they are very much doing something wrong.
    Mrs Thatcher was VERY unpopular mid-term. But by the time she got to the 1983 election she had regained the Falklands and the alternative was Michael Foot. By the time she got to the 1987 election the economy was considerably stronger and the alternative was Neil Kinnock. And, in both elections, the SDP/Libs did a lot more damage to Labour than the Conservatives.

    I don't think you can usefully compare the current period with the Thatcher period.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 29,523

    Have just noticed that there's a huge section of stuff about Teesside freeport on CityAM:

    https://www.cityam.com/teesside-freeport/

    No idea if it is effective or not but Ben Houchen is certainly good at promoting things.

    Houchen is the front man. Before Houchen the Teeside Tory PR machine was already amazing. Their best operator was this young chap, now promoted off to Spad for Kwazi
    Kwarteng: https://twitter.com/cameronbrownuk?lang=en
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 29,641
    HYUFD said:

    No postwar government, Labour or Tory, has ever put forward policies everybody agrees with all the time.

    Yes you govern for everybody in the sense of keeping law and order but otherwise Tory and Labour governments govern for their base and voters first, ie Labour governments spend more on the public sector and tax the rich more and are more socially liberal and open to more immigration, Tory governments spend less, tax less, are generally more socially conservative and in favour of tighter immigration controls.
    Tory governments spend less and tax less? Which Tory governments? Not this one. Nor the one before, whose Chancellor boasted Britain's tax take was at an all-time high. One of the remarkable achievements of the Thatcher government was to persuade people that only income tax mattered. Nor did Tory governments reduce immigration, since even non-EU immigration, not covered by EU FOM, rose.

    But maybe that is the point. Despite what it does, voters remember what the Conservative Party says.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146

    It actually amazes me that Labour - a party meant to be looking after the interests of the poorest of society - concentrates massively more on the top end of academic achievement - e.g. going to university, than at the bottom end, which really requires the attention and money.

    ISTR they did try for a brief time in the late 1990s, but after that it became "50% to uni".

    Blair’s 50% to uni was one of his most idiotic policies.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 25,737
    MaxPB said:

    You're missing the point. Social care needs to be paid for and it needs to not be paid for by working age people. We have a class of very wealthy pensioners sitting on massive DB schemes that pay them an annual income in the higher rate bracket and they also receive the state pension in addition plus probably income from investments and property wealth.

    It is morally right that those who can pay the most towards their own care costs should do so. Working age people are already highly taxed.

    My wife and I are planning to have kids in the very near future and the costs are legitimately frightening. We sat down with my sister to figure it all out over the weekend and came away shit scared and we're both on high incomes. I can't imagine what it's like for lower and middle income people to be clobbered with yet another tax because the selfish old don't want to pay for their own social care costs.
    They will have a different set of (lower cost) solutions.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    eek said:

    That's the thing a dot.com startup says as it desperately hunts for the next mug stupid enough to pay the next 6 months of costs.
    Andrew Neil is utterly incompetent as a businessman. He pretty much single-handedly destroyed the once-mighty Scotsman brand.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Just been to the shops without a mask for the first time since they were mandated about a year ago (actually started wearing them voluntarily before they were mandated).

    It was so refreshing, especially in this heat, to be walking around a fairly quiet air conditioned supermarket without a mask blocking nose and mouth and able to breathe properly while shopping for the first time in so long.

    On the way in, there was a sign asking people to please wear the mask (rather than saying it was mandated) which I disregarded; I'd guess looking at people that about 60% of shoppers were still wearing masks, but only about 20% of staff were still wearing them. I'm curious to see how those ratios change in the coming weeks.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,105
    edited July 2021

    Morning Roger

    The people have spoken.. the bastards eh.....

    Do.you have the right to vote here ?....if you do,
    you do realise you have classed yourself as moronic...

    Good Morning. Yes I have and as one of the very few posters who never got beyond my Cycling Proficiency Test I should be a natural Tory.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,674
    edited July 2021
    DougSeal said:

    Here's some "real world" data regarding the AZ vaccine effectiveness against various VOC's, including Beta. It remains a shame the amount of crap AZ gets given these results.

    https://t.co/YF90ug2B3q?amp=1

    The last table is good news for all the vaccines. It's also reassuring to have the PHE numbers confirmed by another country's health body. I wonder whether Israel is seeing the early stages of fading efficacy and will need to run a booster programme in August.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 44,872

    Blair’s 50% to uni was one of his most idiotic policies.
    I generally agree. It was aspirational but arbitrary and meaningless, and had some nasty consequences.

    Having said that; the girl that I mentioned below (the daughter of a miner) probably got to go to university because of it. I therefore cannot say it was totally bad.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Mrs Thatcher was VERY unpopular mid-term. But by the time she got to the 1983 election she had regained the Falklands and the alternative was Michael Foot. By the time she got to the 1987 election the economy was considerably stronger and the alternative was Neil Kinnock. And, in both elections, the SDP/Libs did a lot more damage to Labour than the Conservatives.

    I don't think you can usefully compare the current period with the Thatcher period.
    The evidence seems to be that the SDP/Libs actually did more damage to the Tories than Labour. Most Alliance voters told surveys they'd prefer a Thatcher led Tory government than a Labour one in a forced choice.

    Had it not been for the Alliance, its possible that Labour would have been hammered even more rather than less.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,964

    Just been to the shops without a mask for the first time since they were mandated about a year ago (actually started wearing them voluntarily before they were mandated).

    It was so refreshing, especially in this heat, to be walking around a fairly quiet air conditioned supermarket without a mask blocking nose and mouth and able to breathe properly while shopping for the first time in so long.

    On the way in, there was a sign asking people to please wear the mask (rather than saying it was mandated) which I disregarded; I'd guess looking at people that about 60% of shoppers were still wearing masks, but only about 20% of staff were still wearing them. I'm curious to see how those ratios change in the coming weeks.

    I ordered a pint at the bar in the Blue Anchor last night, maskless. I did ask the bartender whether I should wear a mask. "Up to you sir" he said.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 14,157
    edited July 2021
    Taz said:

    What a shock, he’s banging on about ‘migrants’ in the channel. He means refugees fleeing persecution but that’s a different story.
    430 yesterday. Priti is obviously incapable of fixing so if Farage starts banging on about Johnson might have to find somebody who can. This issue is definitely something the slack jawed morons of the Blue Wall give a massive fuck about.
  • TazTaz Posts: 16,911

    The channel connects the UK to France/the EU.

    What persecution are refugees facing in France/the EU?

    Should we be bombing them to seek regime change in your eyes?
    Lol. Do you also wear a beret and go ‘ooh betty, the cats done a whoopsie”
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,421
    edited July 2021
    Some of you will remember that last week I did some rough and ready calculations using the weekly death stats trying to work out what the average life lost due to COVID might be. I said that the last seven weeks were about 2,000 deaths below the average pre-COVID and assumed that this was a decent guide for the wake of COVID.

    Well, the figures for the week ending 9 July have just been published:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsregisteredweeklyinenglandandwalesprovisional/weekending9july2021#deaths-registered-by-week

    And guess what, a big spike in deaths. Here are the number of deaths for Week 27 (week ending around 3 to 9 July):

    2010: 8,627
    2011: 8,705
    2012: 8,909
    2013: 8,790
    2014: 8,763
    2015: 9,205
    2016: 9,138
    2017: 9,263
    2018: 9,258
    2019: 9,062
    2020: 9,140 (of which 532 were recorded as COVID)
    2021: 9,752 (of which 183 were recorded as COVID)

    COVID deaths went up (was averaging around 100 for the previous seven weeks), but that's not a huge factor. The previous two weeks in 2021 recorded 8,690 and 8,808 deaths, so that 9,752 deaths is an 11% increase.

    Obviously there will be noise in a dataset like this, but this is the first time that non-COVID deaths have been well above average (excluding bank holidays) since last September. It will be interesting to see if this is a one off or the start of a trend (the current hot weather will probably show up in two weeks time).

    EDIT: I'm assuming that we're not seeing a big under-count for COVID related deaths. The 183 (England and Wales) is pretty close to what worldometers has for the UK for the week ending 9 July.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Taz said:

    Lol. Do you also wear a beret and go ‘ooh betty, the cats done a whoopsie”
    No.

    But speaking of beret wearers, these poor desperate souls fleeing France across the Channel - why are they fleeing France?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,774

    To be precise, pragmatism in this case means that we continue to maintain the same standards that we have now (and, the difficult bit, agree to upgrade standards if the EU later decides to do so - e.g. to require all new cars to have a fire extinguisher, to take a random example of national difference that I came across in a translation - it might be an EU standard one day). To object, one has to either (a) identify an EU standard that we should like to fall below (e.g. in order to get a trade deal) or (b) object in principle to maintaining high standards even if we will want them in practice.

    The prize, if one does accept the idea, is that the Northern Irish problem simply vanishes. The privince is in the single market, and it has goods to the same standard, so all talk of border posts and suchlike becomes irrelevant. I do understand that the idea of accepting any future improvement in standards is a bit uncomfortable from rhe Brexit viewpoint, but fighting in the last ditch for the right to lower standards seems perverse.

    It is, at least, a genuine difference, about which there is absolutely no knowledge of debate in the wider public.
    People, including the UK government, misunderstand regulation. They see it as a cost and therefore the less regulation you have the lower the cost and the more options you have. In fact, it is compliance that is key, not the regulation that drives it. Compliance enables you to do things you want to do and which you are otherwise unable to do, in particular to operate in a territory or to sell to it. Compliance has costs, but these are the costs of doing business, like marketing or production. In general businesses and organisations seek to maximise compliance, not minimise regulation.

    In this context, the best thing the UK government can do is make its regulation compliant for the EU. That enables a market of 30 countries with one set of compliance rather than one. It also makes the UK a massively more attractive investment destination, given that companies will be compliant with EU regs anyway. Also largely deals with the Irish Sea border issue

    But you are only compliant if the other party says you are. Which introduces issues of rule-taking, being at the whim of a larger more powerful party and not "taking control".
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 44,872

    They're not. They're "punishing" the lunatic Israeli settlers. Well, "punished" is a strong word...
    I must admit I hold Ben and Jerry's in the same level of contempt as Starbucks and Apple. Overpriced tat, sold more on image than any genuine advantage to the consumer.

    (Awaits incoming from TSE...)
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,751

    No.

    But speaking of beret wearers, these poor desperate souls fleeing France across the Channel - why are they fleeing France?
    Mainly because the French treat them like shit. They steal their belongings and their shelters. They dump them in the middle of nowhere. They break up families randomly and enjoy some physical violence too. Being a refugee in France is no joke.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,278

    Blair’s 50% to uni was one of his most idiotic policies.
    Certainly it is only really those who go to Russell Group universities and particularly those who study STEM subjects and subjects like law and medicine who see any real increase in their earnings potential compared to what they had after A Levels.

    For most of the rest they would be better off doing an apprenticeship and for the bottom end the focus should be ensuring they left school with basis literacy and numeracy
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,004
    MaxPB said:

    The last table is good news for all the vaccines. It's also reassuring to have the PHE numbers confirmed by another country's health body. I wonder whether Israel is seeing the early stages of fading efficacy and will need to run a booster programme in August.
    Looks like Moderna is the king of vaccines tbh
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 8,712
    Charles said:

    Why punish the Palestinians?
    Hm. I'm not persuaded that constraining Palestinians' ability to purchase Ben & Jerry's ice cream constitutes a significant punishment for those beleaguered people.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 50,432
    MaxPB said:

    You're missing the point. Social care needs to be paid for and it needs to not be paid for by working age people. We have a class of very wealthy pensioners sitting on massive DB schemes that pay them an annual income in the higher rate bracket and they also receive the state pension in addition plus probably income from investments and property wealth.

    It is morally right that those who can pay the most towards their own care costs should do so. Working age people are already highly taxed.

    My wife and I are planning to have kids in the very near future and the costs are legitimately frightening. We sat down with my sister to figure it all out over the weekend and came away shit scared and we're both on high incomes. I can't imagine what it's like for lower and middle income people to be clobbered with yet another tax because the selfish old don't want to pay for their own social care costs.
    Yes but wealthy pensioners already pay for their own Social Care, at least until they are down to their last £26 000. The problem of funding SC is for poorer pensioners, and the problem from the government perspective is that people want to receive windfall inheritances rather than pay for their own social care.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,262
    edited July 2021
    Cookie said:

    On thread - really, really good article by @Cyclefree .

    I'm particularly intrigued with 'Boris isn't perfect, but doesn't pretend to be'. I think this is a useful insight. The electorate can forgive a lot of failings in politicians if those politicians didn't claim those virtues in the first place. I always like the example of Alan Johnson, who was unusually comfortable to answer a question with 'I don't know'. Conversely, the most ire is reserved for those politicians who fail to meet the standards they set themselves (Matt Hancock).

    To Labour's problems, something @ManchesterKurt said yesterday set me thinking. He was talking about the smoking ban - how the protestations beforehand led to nothing and that we all now accept smoke-free pubs. Now, I think Kurt is from the same part of Manchester as me (same road, IIRC) - and it's true that from our point of view, in middle-class suburban south Manchester, pubs and bars have got better and better over the past 15 years - bad ones have closed and good ones have opened. But if you live in somewhere less fashionable, you have only seen closures - basic but functional pubs, working mens clubs and social clubs have disappeared from the scene. Though we non-smoking middle classes don't see it, the smoking ban caused a tremendous amount of disillusionment with Labour among its traditional support. (John Reid got this, even if the party's middle class base did not). Moreover, Labour is a communitarian party: it's ethos can only thrive in a country where people view themselves communally. Take that away, and the case for communitariansim becomes harder. In fact, I bet you could map net closure of licensed premises and that it would correspond almost exactly to those places where the Labour vote has fallen the furthest in the past fifteen years.

    Research topic for a politics or history student?

    Locally many of the sort of people one would expect to vote Labour drink in the Conservative Club; why. Because the beer is cheaper. I don't know whether it makes a difference to anyone's vote, but it's a sort of drip, drip, drip.
    And not just the taps.
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 3,375
    tlg86 said:

    Some of you will remember that last week I did some rough and ready calculations using the weekly death stats trying to work out what the average life lost due to COVID might be. I said that the last seven weeks were about 2,000 deaths below the average pre-COVID and assumed that this was a decent guide for the wake of COVID.

    Well, the figures for the week ending 9 July have just been published:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsregisteredweeklyinenglandandwalesprovisional/weekending9july2021#deaths-registered-by-week

    And guess what, a big spike in deaths. Here are the number of deaths for Week 27 (week ending around 3 to 9 July):

    2010: 8,627
    2011: 8,705
    2012: 8,909
    2013: 8,790
    2014: 8,763
    2015: 9,205
    2016: 9,138
    2017: 9,263
    2018: 9,258
    2019: 9,062
    2020: 9,140 (of which 532 were recorded as COVID)
    2021: 9,752 (of which 183 were recorded as COVID)

    COVID deaths went up (was averaging around 100 for the previous seven weeks), but that's not a huge factor. The previous two weeks in 2021 recorded 8,690 and 8,808 deaths, so that 9,752 deaths is an 11% increase.

    Obviously there will be noise in a dataset like this, but this is the first time that non-COVID deaths have been well above average (excluding bank holidays) since last September. It will be interesting to see if this is a one off or the start of a trend (the current hot weather will probably show up in two weeks time).

    From the ONS commentary:

    Of all deaths registered in Week 27 in England, 1.9% mentioned COVID-19 on the death certificate.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,278
    edited July 2021

    Tory governments spend less and tax less? Which Tory governments? Not this one. Nor the one before, whose Chancellor boasted Britain's tax take was at an all-time high. One of the remarkable achievements of the Thatcher government was to persuade people that only income tax mattered. Nor did Tory governments reduce immigration, since even non-EU immigration, not covered by EU FOM, rose.

    But maybe that is the point. Despite what it does, voters remember what the Conservative Party says.
    In 1979 at the end of the Wilson and Callaghan Labour government spending as a percentage of gdp was 38.5% (reaching a high of 44% in 1975 under Wilson) which fell to 32.5% by the end of the Thatcher and Major years.

    By the end of the Blair Brown years in 2010 spending as a percentage of gdp had reached 43.1% which had fallen to 39% by 2019 after 9 years of Tory rule (albeit Boris has gone on a bit of a spending spree since than).

    https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/past_spending

    Thatcher also cut the top rate of income tax from almost 90% to 40% when she left office, Cameron cut it from 50% to 45% and raised the IHT threshold to £1 million.

    EU net immigration to the UK has fallen 36% since Brexit

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jun/17/number-of-eu-citizens-seeking-work-in-uk-falls-36-since-brexit-study-shows


  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 14,157

    No.

    But speaking of beret wearers, these poor desperate souls fleeing France across the Channel - why are they fleeing France?
    Hostile climate for refugees in France.
    Non-contributory benefits in the UK.
    English language and existing social capital in the UK as second order issues.

    It's not complicated.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,278
    Dura_Ace said:

    Hostile climate for refugees in France.
    Non-contributory benefits in the UK.
    English language and existing social capital in the UK as second order issues.

    It's not complicated.
    France also has non-contributory benefits, it is Italy which doesn't
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,262

    And why not? As apparently people aren't paying attention to Clown stupidity, why not feed that stupidity? The National up here and the Express down there are the dumbest newspapers possible.
    If you look at comments on the weather in the Express, they are in Fahrenheit. Every one else (outside the US) uses Centigrade
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 9,137
    MaxPB said:

    You're missing the point. Social care needs to be paid for and it needs to not be paid for by working age people. We have a class of very wealthy pensioners sitting on massive DB schemes that pay them an annual income in the higher rate bracket and they also receive the state pension in addition plus probably income from investments and property wealth.

    It is morally right that those who can pay the most towards their own care costs should do so. Working age people are already highly taxed.

    My wife and I are planning to have kids in the very near future and the costs are legitimately frightening. We sat down with my sister to figure it all out over the weekend and came away shit scared and we're both on high incomes. I can't imagine what it's like for lower and middle income people to be clobbered with yet another tax because the selfish old don't want to pay for their own social care costs.
    I agree entirely that those who can pay the most should do so - and I support more uniform redistibution in tax etc from the wealthy old (which is not all) to the younger, rather than the ad-hoc system now that depends on whether you have well-off parents. But why raid only those with DB pensions? Some with DB pensions are wealthy/very welathy on it (my father in law, for example, who thinks he should pay more tax). Some on DB pensions will not be wealthy, they should not be targeted just because the pension is DB.

    As for kids, good luck :smile: It will change your life completely, but it's well worth it. We went from having more money than we could spend to doing ok (well, we have spare each month still, so we're comfortable, I guess). There are costs, for sure, but you'll also (likely) not have the time to spend the money you spend now. We eat out little, holiday mostly in the UK while the kids are small, don't spend so much on hobbies, but that's driven more by practical concerns than money (eating out is a bit of a faff with small kids, flights are not that much fun with small kids and you have to take a lot of stuff, if you've got as much time for hobbies after kids then you're probably doing it wrong!) but while we've spent large amounts on having children (clothing, food, bigger car, bigger house) we've also saved large amounts elsewhere. Our income is lower as only I work at present, but, ignoring commuting costs, which have fallen, our expenditure is not much different pre- and post- children.

    If you want to do everything you used to do and pay for lots of childcare to enable that then it will cost a lot more. But you may find you have other, better things to do with children that cost a lot less.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Dura_Ace said:

    Hostile climate for refugees in France.
    Non-contributory benefits in the UK.
    English language and existing social capital in the UK as second order issues.

    It's not complicated.
    Hostile climate for refugees in France is a terrible issue that pressure should be put on the French to address surely?

    Benefits are not a refugee issue. If people want access to Britain's benefits that's economic migration and they're free to apply for a visa.

    English language etc again is a reason to apply for a visa, not about being a refugee.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 50,432

    Blair’s 50% to uni was one of his most idiotic policies.
    Well, it is the case that similar number go to uni in most of our competitors. Even higher in some like South Korea. I don't think Britons are thicker than other nations.

    The problem is more the poor quality of many undergraduate degrees rather than the need for a highly educated workforce.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,674
    Foxy said:

    Yes but wealthy pensioners already pay for their own Social Care, at least until they are down to their last £26 000. The problem of funding SC is for poorer pensioners, and the problem from the government perspective is that people want to receive windfall inheritances rather than pay for their own social care.
    And DB pensions are an asset class that aren't inheritable, it's a win/win.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,281
    Scottish Government forced to apologise to vaccine manufacturers over deployment plan fiasco

    Ministers were forced to write letters of apology to the managing directors of Pfizer and AstraZeneca after publishing commercially sensitive information around Covid-19 vaccine supply, The Scotsman can reveal......

    .....Nicola Sturgeon said she was not “convinced” by the arguments put forward by the UK Government, later describing Boris Johnson’s government of having thrown a “hissy fit” over the publication as a briefing war around the number of vaccines being supplied to the Scottish Government erupted.


    https://www.scotsman.com/health/coronavirus/scottish-government-forced-to-apologise-to-vaccine-manufacturers-over-deployment-plan-fiasco-3314296
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 29,641

    I must admit I hold Ben and Jerry's in the same level of contempt as Starbucks and Apple. Overpriced tat, sold more on image than any genuine advantage to the consumer.

    (Awaits incoming from TSE...)
    Ben and Jerry's made children's food acceptable to adults. We should acknowledge that.

    Starbucks' coffee is better than instant. Apple hardware and the Apple software ecosystem are better than the alternatives. They might still be overpriced, of course. It's the old story. Add a pound's worth of value and charge a tenner.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,262
    Foxy said:

    Well, it is the case that similar number go to uni in most of our competitors. Even higher in some like South Korea. I don't think Britons are thicker than other nations.

    The problem is more the poor quality of many undergraduate degrees rather than the need for a highly educated workforce.
    Sure Start should never have been scrapped.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 29,523
    DavidL said:

    Mainly because the French treat them like shit. They steal their belongings and their shelters. They dump them in the middle of nowhere. They break up families randomly and enjoy some physical violence too. Being a refugee in France is no joke.
    The international refugee crisis is a massive problem for the west and can only be fixed via cooperation. The starter for 10 is spend money on international development to make their home countries less shitty and dangerous. Followed by close cooperation at regional level to distribute refugees more evenly to create less local problems.

    The UK of course wants none of that. The forrin can do one. "Why can't they settle in France" or "They have to settle in the first safe country" is simply unsustainable - remember the refugee crisis on Lesbos, the first safe place many arrived at?

    When people make those statements what they want is zero refugees. Only people arriving here direct from their unsafe country by air could claim - which is basically none at all.

    "Global Britain" is either part of the international community, playing our role in this crisis, or we are not. Farage and his supporters want the Global Community to give all that we want whilst we give nothing that they want. For the refugees that means no boats coming from France and if the French won't take them back and they drown then thats the Frogs fault for not stopping them leaving.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,644
    FF43 said:



    People, including the UK government, misunderstand regulation. They see it as a cost and therefore the less regulation you have the lower the cost and the more options you have. In fact, it is compliance that is key, not the regulation that drives it. Compliance enables you to do things you want to do and which you are otherwise unable to do, in particular to operate in a territory or to sell to it. Compliance has costs, but these are the costs of doing business, like marketing or production. In general businesses and organisations seek to maximise compliance, not minimise regulation.

    In this context, the best thing the UK government can do is make its regulation compliant for the EU. That enables a market of 30 countries with one set of compliance rather than one. It also makes the UK a massively more attractive investment destination, given that companies will be compliant with EU regs anyway. Also largely deals with the Irish Sea border issue

    But you are only compliant if the other party says you are. Which introduces issues of rule-taking, being at the whim of a larger more powerful party and not "taking control".

    Agreed. I worked for many years in the largest pharma multinational, and remember the CEO saying that when deciding where to invest, the level of regulation wasn't a key issue - what companies need is clear regulation that doesn't keep changing. To take my random example of having a fire extinguisher in cars, Honda really won't care whether this is required or not as the marginal cost will be trivial, but they'd like a standard rule so they can manufacture accordingly, What's irritating for manufacturers is having lots of different rules - in Britain the device must be size X and painted green, in Belgium it must be size Y and painted red.

    Of course there are standards which actually matter, but a lot of the benefit is simply agreeing to work with the same ones.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 29,523
    HYUFD said:

    Certainly it is only really those who go to Russell Group universities and particularly those who study STEM subjects and subjects like law and medicine who see any real increase in their earnings potential compared to what they had after A Levels.

    For most of the rest they would be better off doing an apprenticeship and for the bottom end the focus should be ensuring they left school with basis literacy and numeracy
    So you support a huge increase in directed cash to the poorest schools and direct support for the most deprived children?

    You can't say you support literacy and numeracy whilst supporting policies which directly reduce attainment.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    The international refugee crisis is a massive problem for the west and can only be fixed via cooperation. The starter for 10 is spend money on international development to make their home countries less shitty and dangerous. Followed by close cooperation at regional level to distribute refugees more evenly to create less local problems.

    The UK of course wants none of that. The forrin can do one. "Why can't they settle in France" or "They have to settle in the first safe country" is simply unsustainable - remember the refugee crisis on Lesbos, the first safe place many arrived at?

    When people make those statements what they want is zero refugees. Only people arriving here direct from their unsafe country by air could claim - which is basically none at all.

    "Global Britain" is either part of the international community, playing our role in this crisis, or we are not. Farage and his supporters want the Global Community to give all that we want whilst we give nothing that they want. For the refugees that means no boats coming from France and if the French won't take them back and they drown then thats the Frogs fault for not stopping them leaving.
    David Cameron had the right solution years ago which is to take genuine refugees from organised camps direct from frontline areas like Turkey.

    Not have a Darwinian "if you can get here without drowning then we'll take you" survival of the fittest race to get here.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,303
    Mr. Pioneers, you do omit the rather significant, and very good, move by the UK to allow Hong Kong citizens to come here. That's no small thing.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 16,261
    MaxPB said:

    You're missing the point. Social care needs to be paid for and it needs to not be paid for by working age people. We have a class of very wealthy pensioners sitting on massive DB schemes that pay them an annual income in the higher rate bracket and they also receive the state pension in addition plus probably income from investments and property wealth.

    It is morally right that those who can pay the most towards their own care costs should do so. Working age people are already highly taxed.

    My wife and I are planning to have kids in the very near future and the costs are legitimately frightening. We sat down with my sister to figure it all out over the weekend and came away shit scared and we're both on high incomes. I can't imagine what it's like for lower and middle income people to be clobbered with yet another tax because the selfish old don't want to pay for their own social care costs.
    Kids are not especially expensive. You will find that half their clothes are hand me downs from friends and family. The government provides some help with childcare costs. They don't need expensive toys or accessories. The main investment you need to make is to give them your time. You will save a lot of money by not going out for the first few years, anyway.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 50,432

    The international refugee crisis is a massive problem for the west and can only be fixed via cooperation. The starter for 10 is spend money on international development to make their home countries less shitty and dangerous. Followed by close cooperation at regional level to distribute refugees more evenly to create less local problems.

    The UK of course wants none of that. The forrin can do one. "Why can't they settle in France" or "They have to settle in the first safe country" is simply unsustainable - remember the refugee crisis on Lesbos, the first safe place many arrived at?

    When people make those statements what they want is zero refugees. Only people arriving here direct from their unsafe country by air could claim - which is basically none at all.

    "Global Britain" is either part of the international community, playing our role in this crisis, or we are not. Farage and his supporters want the Global Community to give all that we want whilst we give nothing that they want. For the refugees that means no boats coming from France and if the French won't take them back and they drown then thats the Frogs fault for not stopping them leaving.
    The collapse of Afghanistan is going to bring on a fresh exodus of refugees, which in turn will destabilise fragile neighbours.

    They are here because we were there.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 14,157

    Hostile climate for refugees in France is a terrible issue that pressure should be put on the French to address surely?

    Benefits are not a refugee issue. If people want access to Britain's benefits that's economic migration and they're free to apply for a visa.

    English language etc again is a reason to apply for a visa, not about being a refugee.
    All of that is irrelevant. You asked why they were leaving France. I told you. You might as well go and stand on a beach at Grande-Synthe and advise the assorted tatterdemalions to apply for visas instead of getting in an Aldi RIB.

    What is relevant is the government's completely ineffective and incompetent response. Particularly if it becomes a staple feature of This Time with Nigel Farage.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 29,523

    David Cameron had the right solution years ago which is to take genuine refugees from organised camps direct from frontline areas like Turkey.

    Not have a Darwinian "if you can get here without drowning then we'll take you" survival of the fittest race to get here.
    Indeed. So why don't we do that then? Oh year, because refugees are all fake and will simultaneously take all the jobs and all the benefits...
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 29,641
    HYUFD said:

    Certainly it is only really those who go to Russell Group universities and particularly those who study STEM subjects and subjects like law and medicine who see any real increase in their earnings potential compared to what they had after A Levels.

    For most of the rest they would be better off doing an apprenticeship and for the bottom end the focus should be ensuring they left school with basis literacy and numeracy
    Up to a point, Lord Copper. First, it would probably be better if companies recruited without reference to a student's alma mater. Tech companies in the US found this.

    Second, medicine used to be taught by apprenticeship and law often still is. Law might be a graduate profession but not one that demands a degree in law.

    Third, STEM subjects are popular but often not for their main subjects but for peripheral skills. Dominic Cummings popularised hiring astrophysicists, not because they can discourse on whether Pluto is a planet but because they are used to taking vast quantities of data from telescopes and shoving it through Python, Pandas and Jupyter notebooks, all of which can probably be taught in a week.

    As it is, universities are often finishing schools. Want to get a BBC comedy series? Cambridge. Fancy running the country? Oxford. And so on.

    But channeling my inner Michael Gove, perhaps there is more to life than money and education is a public good in and of itself. I'd like to think so.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Dura_Ace said:

    All of that is irrelevant. You asked why they were leaving France. I told you. You might as well go and stand on a beach at Grande-Synthe and advise the assorted tatterdemalions to apply for visas instead of getting in an Aldi RIB.

    What is relevant is the government's completely ineffective and incompetent response. Particularly if it becomes a staple feature of This Time with Nigel Farage.
    Well indeed.

    The correct and humane solution is to immediately deport, without right to appeal, anyone who comes from France - while safely taking legitimate refugees from frontline countries.
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 6,303
    moonshine said:

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0525954872/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_imm_ZD7233405FSMQ98P9ZM5

    Intervention at school age is already too late for children raised in a household without continual linguistic interaction. Famous study (contested by trendy types) of a word gap of 30 million words heard by the age of three between the haves and have nots. The period when the brain is at its most plastic.

    By the time we begin rolling out free childcare in this country, the child’s economic potential is already largely set. So it is said by the authors, no amount of schooling can then raise this potential again, merely allow the fulfilment of the curtailed potential.

    Hence the advice to sing to your baby and continually narrate what you are doing to them while looking them in the eye.

    If we want to improve long term productivity, we need to find ways of financially supporting parents of very young children to remain outside the workplace for as long as possible after a child’s birth. Instead this government is fixated with providing bung after bung to the wrong end of the electoral demographic.
    30 million is approximately the number is seconds in a year. As babies sleep most of the time and estimating a word a second that implies one group has been talked to almost continuously while awake and the other kept almost in silence.

    I’m not saying it’s impossible, but I’d have to see a good reference to believe it (3 million would be much more plausible: is it a power of ten problem?)
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 29,523

    Mr. Pioneers, you do omit the rather significant, and very good, move by the UK to allow Hong Kong citizens to come here. That's no small thing.

    1. How many have actually come here so far? Not an issue for the public - given their disinterest in politics have they even noticed the announcement?
    2. People like Chinese Food so they're not instinctively against them unlike all these fake afghan children who are all 34 and get a free house and golf lessons
    3. Lets see the response when HK British start arriving in large numbers
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,639

    If you look at comments on the weather in the Express, they are in Fahrenheit. Every one else (outside the US) uses Centigrade
    Fahrenheit is the only pre-metric unit of measurement I can’t do despite my American spouse. I think in miles, metres (with the below exception) ounces, and degrees Celsius. I measure people’s height in feet and inches. The confusion of being born in the seventies.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,262
    edited July 2021
    Selebian said:

    I agree entirely that those who can pay the most should do so - and I support more uniform redistibution in tax etc from the wealthy old (which is not all) to the younger, rather than the ad-hoc system now that depends on whether you have well-off parents. But why raid only those with DB pensions? Some with DB pensions are wealthy/very welathy on it (my father in law, for example, who thinks he should pay more tax). Some on DB pensions will not be wealthy, they should not be targeted just because the pension is DB.

    As for kids, good luck :smile: It will change your life completely, but it's well worth it. We went from having more money than we could spend to doing ok (well, we have spare each month still, so we're comfortable, I guess). There are costs, for sure, but you'll also (likely) not have the time to spend the money you spend now. We eat out little, holiday mostly in the UK while the kids are small, don't spend so much on hobbies, but that's driven more by practical concerns than money (eating out is a bit of a faff with small kids, flights are not that much fun with small kids and you have to take a lot of stuff, if you've got as much time for hobbies after kids then you're probably doing it wrong!) but while we've spent large amounts on having children (clothing, food, bigger car, bigger house) we've also saved large amounts elsewhere. Our income is lower as only I work at present, but, ignoring commuting costs, which have fallen, our expenditure is not much different pre- and post- children.

    If you want to do everything you used to do and pay for lots of childcare to enable that then it will cost a lot more. But you may find you have other, better things to do with children that cost a lot less.
    Absolutely right. You do what you think is your best for your children and get told it's wrong, you worry and worry about their education, you have sleepless nights about where they are.

    Then at one of the late (70's onwards) birthdays one or other of them stands up and makes a speech saying how wonderful you've been as a parent, and how much they owe to you.

    Go ahead. Do it.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 16,261

    Up to a point, Lord Copper. First, it would probably be better if companies recruited without reference to a student's alma mater. Tech companies in the US found this.

    Second, medicine used to be taught by apprenticeship and law often still is. Law might be a graduate profession but not one that demands a degree in law.

    Third, STEM subjects are popular but often not for their main subjects but for peripheral skills. Dominic Cummings popularised hiring astrophysicists, not because they can discourse on whether Pluto is a planet but because they are used to taking vast quantities of data from telescopes and shoving it through Python, Pandas and Jupyter notebooks, all of which can probably be taught in a week.

    As it is, universities are often finishing schools. Want to get a BBC comedy series? Cambridge. Fancy running the country? Oxford. And so on.

    But channeling my inner Michael Gove, perhaps there is more to life than money and education is a public good in and of itself. I'd like to think so.
    In a democracy, poorly educated people can easily be fooled by lying politicians into making poor choices that directly reduce other people's quality of life. It is in everyone's interest to live in a society composed mostly of numerate, informed, sceptical and questioning citizens.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,922

    Mollycoddling pensioners is the one thing that truly pisses me off about this current administration.
    Shame on you , tax the whinging arses I say especially where both partners work, they should only get one tax allowance. Problems solved.
    Hard to believe the rich people on here who would beggar pensioners so they could get their grubby paws on even more money, pathetic cretins.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 14,636

    In a democracy, poorly educated people can easily be fooled by lying politicians into making poor choices that directly reduce other people's quality of life. It is in everyone's interest to live in a society composed mostly of numerate, informed, sceptical and questioning citizens.
    Well yes. But I'm not sure today's graduates are necessarily an advert for university's ability to impart these skills. Most of the media have been to university.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 14,157
    edited July 2021

    Well indeed.

    The correct and humane solution is to immediately deport, without right to appeal, anyone who comes from France - while safely taking legitimate refugees from frontline countries.
    Deport to where? The UK has left the Dublin II Regulation so they can't be deported to the EU or other signatories. Many of the arrivals will have no ID and/or come from countries to which the UK doesn't deport anyway.

    You voted for this situation. Own it.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 29,641
    HYUFD said:

    In 1979 at the end of the Wilson and Callaghan Labour government spending as a percentage of gdp was 38.5% (reaching a high of 44% in 1975 under Wilson) which fell to 32.5% by the end of the Thatcher and Major years.

    By the end of the Blair Brown years in 2010 spending as a percentage of gdp had reached 43.1% which had fallen to 39% by 2019 after 9 years of Tory rule (albeit Boris has gone on a bit of a spending spree since than).

    https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/past_spending

    Thatcher also cut the top rate of income tax from almost 90% to 40% when she left office, Cameron cut it from 50% to 45% and raised the IHT threshold to £1 million.

    EU net immigration to the UK has fallen 36% since Brexit

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jun/17/number-of-eu-citizens-seeking-work-in-uk-falls-36-since-brexit-study-shows


    And non-EU immigration which, as mentioned, rose even though not affected by EU FOM. And what of VAT, more than doubled by Conservative governments? Like I said, Thatcher persuaded us that only income tax counts. And yes, Boris has "gone on a bit of a spending spree".
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,922

    And why not? As apparently people aren't paying attention to Clown stupidity, why not feed that stupidity? The National up here and the Express down there are the dumbest newspapers possible.
    Tight race with many others only a whisker behind.
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 6,303
    DougSeal said:

    Fahrenheit is the only pre-metric unit of measurement I can’t do despite my American spouse. I think in miles, metres (with the below exception) ounces, and degrees Celsius. I measure people’s height in feet and inches. The confusion of being born in the seventies.
    Ironically, Celsius is not the SI unit of temperature. I’m not sure any country actually uses Kelvin in its forecasts…
  • stodgestodge Posts: 14,292
    Morning all :)

    @Cyclefree's header will at least assuage those who think this site is consistently and persistently opposed to the Prime Minister, the Government and the Conservative Party (though it probably won't).

    There are all sorts of reasons for the current political status quo - there is and always has been a willingness to "rally behind the Government" at a time of perceived or actual crisis. That is aided by Labour's conscious decision to provide "constructive Opposition" (in essence, being largely supportive of the Government's actions).

    The temptation, were it to be more vociferous and critical, is to say "what would you have done differently?" and the answer is of course nothing. Had Starmer been Prime Minister in March 2020, he'd have done exactly what Johnson did - perhaps a little earlier, perhaps not.

    The only credible opposition line would have been to argue against any form of restriction from the beginning or perhaps from last June. That's a credible position - not popular perhaps but credible.

    Therein lies the problem for those looking to carve out a distinctive niche - a majority of the public (for now) believes we are in a crisis and broadly supports the measures taken by the Government to mitigate the crisis. A growing majority of the adult population has voluntarily agreed to be vaccinated based on the information supplied by Government and other bodies and has largely eschewed the opposing views.

    There will be a reckoning for all this - fiscal, medical, political, cultural, social to name but five. Each one will be different, affect people differently and will be of longer or shorter duration.

    There are socio-economic and cultural changes from the pandemic which may prove permanent both positive and negative (that's the nature of these things).

    I don't sense either Government or Opposition has a coherent vision of post-Covid Britain - the Government (naturally) wants to emphasise the positive and try to "return to normal" but that normal for millions of people is not the life that was pre-Covid.

    Oddly enough, Covid will have a much more fundamental impact on how we live than leaving the EU ever could.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,973

    Hostile climate for refugees in France is a terrible issue that pressure should be put on the French to address surely?

    Benefits are not a refugee issue. If people want access to Britain's benefits that's economic migration and they're free to apply for a visa.

    English language etc again is a reason to apply for a visa, not about being a refugee.
    UK finds itself in a superb position to put pressure on France obvs.

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,281
    Hugo Gye - who has been paying attention - on the vaccine roll out:

    There is no doubt that the rollout has been a resounding success since it launched seven months ago. Britain soared ahead of every comparable country in the weeks after the vaccines became available, with the one exception being Israel.

    While other countries have thankfully managed to pick up the pace since, there is nowhere with a population of 10 million or more that has administered more doses per head than the UK.

    The Vaccines Taskforce was faster to secure supplies than its equivalents elsewhere, and the centralised nature of the NHS meant the rollout went off smoothly, moving through the age groups in a way that was seen by most as eminently fair.

    Every major target was met or exceeded: the original plan was to offer all adults a first dose by the end of September, a timeline which was beaten by fully three months.

    But throughout the whole process, the Government has been inexplicably secretive about the supply available – ministers were constantly hinting at a coming boom which never arrived, apart from a couple of weeks at the end of March and again in late May when the daily figure reached 600,000.


    https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/uk-vaccine-rollout-amazing-success-country-unlocks-1111226
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Dura_Ace said:

    Deport to where? The UK has left the Dublin II Regulation so they can't be deported to the EU or other signatories. Many of the arrivals will have no ID and/or come from countries to which the UK doesn't deport anyway.

    You voted for this situation. Own it.
    Do similar to what the Australians did.

    Essentially write a giant cheque to a safe but poor African nation that any asylum seekers will be sent and processed there. Anyone who comes to the UK gets immediately put on a plane there instead.

    The application can then be processed properly and if its rejected (because eg they came from France and not from a country they're being persecuted from) then they don't need to be deported since they're already not in the country.

    There'll be at least one safe but poor country willing to take our money for such an arrangement, especially since the moment that's put in place and followed through upon people will cease to pay people smugglers to take them to Britain since they know they won't end up in Britain anymore.

    Instead of then having refugees via people smugglers, we can humanely then take our fair share of refugees direct in safe and organised flights from the frontline.

    Problem solved.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,278

    So you support a huge increase in directed cash to the poorest schools and direct support for the most deprived children?

    You can't say you support literacy and numeracy whilst supporting policies which directly reduce attainment.
    Sunak announced £2.2bn extra for schools in England last year, representing 2.2% increase per pupil.

    However teaching basic arithmetic and reading is not something that can be solved by spending alone but effective teachers focused on the basis
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Raising national insurance also breaks the manifesto pledge not to raise income tax or NI.
    So what?

    Social care needs to be funded.

    It may come at a political cost because of a broken pledge but that doesn’t mean it’s not the right thing to do
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Raising national insurance also breaks the manifesto pledge not to raise income tax or NI.
    So what?

    Social care needs to be funded.

    It may come at a political cost because of a broken pledge but that doesn’t mean it’s not the right thing to do
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 44,872

    Ben and Jerry's made children's food acceptable to adults. We should acknowledge that.

    Starbucks' coffee is better than instant. Apple hardware and the Apple software ecosystem are better than the alternatives. They might still be overpriced, of course. It's the old story. Add a pound's worth of value and charge a tenner.
    "Apple software ecosystem are better than the alternatives"

    Proof, if it was ever needed, that 'better' is a terrible metric.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 16,261
    Cookie said:

    Well yes. But I'm not sure today's graduates are necessarily an advert for university's ability to impart these skills. Most of the media have been to university.
    At least half of the media are privately educated, too, makes you wonder why their parents spaffed that money up the wall.
    If you think graduates are credulous and innumerate, though, you should spend some time with a representative sample of non-graduates. These things are all relative.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 5,398

    Kids are not especially expensive. You will find that half their clothes are hand me downs from friends and family. The government provides some help with childcare costs. They don't need expensive toys or accessories. The main investment you need to make is to give them your time. You will save a lot of money by not going out for the first few years, anyway.
    The key is working out the fundamentals: Childcare is a killer in the early years. Housing is another one which is linked to working out the schooling, you need to work all that out very early on; because it is not desirable to change schools. These things will, by themselves, impose vast costs - for most people it means moving house or relocating.

    The other spending is discretionary and basically optional - clothing, toys, holidays etc.

    Many people stumble in to this accidentally, I know lots of people with young kids who are in leased houses with no capital built up; it doesn't provide much stability for the children.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,567
    Intrigued to see Tories talking of raising national insurance.
    All seems a bit Theresa May hubris (though in fairness at least Boris won an election before raising taxes).

    Do the Tories really think they can put 7bn on national insurance?

    Could genuinely be an opportunity for Labour to claim they will *lower* taxes on the working man/woman.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Charles said:

    So what?

    Social care needs to be funded.

    It may come at a political cost because of a broken pledge but that doesn’t mean it’s not the right thing to do
    National Insurance is the worst possible tax to rise.

    Why would you possible want to raise an income tax that many get to evade paying, eg because they're old or claiming income via dividends or other means etc?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,278
    edited July 2021

    And non-EU immigration which, as mentioned, rose even though not affected by EU FOM. And what of VAT, more than doubled by Conservative governments? Like I said, Thatcher persuaded us that only income tax counts. And yes, Boris has "gone on a bit of a spending spree".
    Overall net migration to the UK fell by its largest amount for 6 years in 2019, Patel's points system just ensures EU and non EU migrants are dealt with under the same criteria.

    https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-net-migration-falls/

    The tax take as a percentage of gdp overall was 23% in 1997 which had risen to 26.5% by the end of the Brown years and is now about 25%
    https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/tax-revenue-percent-of-gdp-wb-data.html
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 29,523
    HYUFD said:

    Sunak announced £2.2bn extra for schools in England last year, representing 2.2% increase per pupil.

    However teaching basic arithmetic and reading is not something that can be solved by spending alone but effective teachers focused on the basis
    Teachers cost money. TAs cost money. Books and computers cost money. School buildings well maintained cost money. £2.2bn is a drop in the ocean. And "effective teachers focused on the basics" is an attack on teachers who as results aren't there clearly aren't effective or focused.

    Like I said, you're a screaming hypocrite on this. But as that seems to be most issues its not a surprise.
  • eekeek Posts: 29,399
    HYUFD said:

    Sunak announced £2.2bn extra for schools in England last year, representing 2.2% increase per pupil.

    However teaching basic arithmetic and reading is not something that can be solved by spending alone but effective teachers focused on the basis
    Don't you mean the basics?

    I suspect it would make sense to put additional focus on writing English as well as reading it.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578

    Smoking and Brexit are the same issue. A proposal which Labour activists are convinced will do serious harm to Labour voters who must be too stupid to not think the same.

    FWIW the smoking ban had to happen - whether traditional WWC Labour voters liked a smoke and a fag down the working men's club it was killing them. But if people want the freedom to do and think as they see fit they aren't going to reward you for stopping them and patronising them at the same time.

    The Brexit battle was lost when both sides refused to compromise to the EFTA/EEA route. Positioning Brexit as "all the benefits of membership but we get to make the decisions and keep our money" could have been a vote winner. Instead we had absolutism - and yes I was one of the absolutists. A mistake.
    I think the smoking ban was also tied in with the wider issue of anti-smoking measures taken by Labour during its ruling years - the incessant tax rises, the warnings etc. As John Reid said at the time, Labour was punishing the poorest voters by trying to take away one of the few pleasures they had in life yet was quite content to facilitate middle class wine drinkers, even though the effects of downing a bottle of 14% red wine every night are probably worse overall than smoking 10 cigs.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,556

    Do similar to what the Australians did.

    Essentially write a giant cheque to a safe but poor African nation that any asylum seekers will be sent and processed there. Anyone who comes to the UK gets immediately put on a plane there instead.

    The application can then be processed properly and if its rejected (because eg they came from France and not from a country they're being persecuted from) then they don't need to be deported since they're already not in the country.

    There'll be at least one safe but poor country willing to take our money for such an arrangement, especially since the moment that's put in place and followed through upon people will cease to pay people smugglers to take them to Britain since they know they won't end up in Britain anymore.

    Instead of then having refugees via people smugglers, we can humanely then take our fair share of refugees direct in safe and organised flights from the frontline.

    Problem solved.
    I am not 100% sure we have any nearby client states that we could ask to do this. Where did you have in mind?
  • CookieCookie Posts: 14,636

    Research topic for a politics or history student?

    Locally many of the sort of people one would expect to vote Labour drink in the Conservative Club; why. Because the beer is cheaper. I don't know whether it makes a difference to anyone's vote, but it's a sort of drip, drip, drip.
    And not just the taps.
    Yes - while the working mens' clubs and so forth have declined, the Conservative clubs appear to cling on.

    In the 70s and 80s when I was growing up my parents drank in the Conservative club. Pubs weren't really seen as a viable option. Not sure why. Whereas the Con club gave them a) the same faces, b) snooker, and c) godawful 'entertainments' every Saturday to complain about. Judging by my local Con club, this is still the shtick.

    (I don't know how the market for 'popular local singer' persists, but it does. If I want entertainment, I have a telly at home; I also have youtube; these can bring me all the wonders of the world. If I want a conversation, I will go out to a pub/club etc - but the presence of an entertainer inhibits this.
    I remember a pub I used to drink in 20 years or so ago had the idea one Saturday to get a singer in. As soon as she started - to the general disbelief of the clientele - half the pub got up and left. I felt quite sorry for her, but these people wanted to go for a drink somewhere where no-one was singing - or at least, where one person wasn't singing at them through amplification.)

    And yet Con clubs persist. I occasionally go to one for a function someone has organised - a Christmas party, a Christening, etc. They're still the same as they were. There is a nostalgic smell to them.

    A friend of mine's teenage daughter used to assume that Conservative club was simply the next step after brownies/guides or cubs/scouts - it was just what you joined when you were a grown up. They are astonishingly resilient.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,556
    Charles said:

    So what?

    Social care needs to be funded.

    It may come at a political cost because of a broken pledge but that doesn’t mean it’s not the right thing to do
    Breaking a manifesto pledge because it is the "right" thing to do is the mother of all slippery slopes.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,278
    edited July 2021
    Charles said:

    So what?

    Social care needs to be funded.

    It may come at a political cost because of a broken pledge but that doesn’t mean it’s not the right thing to do
    Yes there are no easy solutions to social care but raising NI causes less damage politically than dementia tax 2 (which would hit middle aged inheritance hard) or raising income tax (as the latter would also hit pensioners).

    NI was of course partly set up to fund healthcare anyway
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,922
    MattW said:

    They will have a different set of (lower cost) solutions.
    Yes and they are not selfish greedy grasping people either which helps. I have seen some lack of self awareness but a rich clown blubbering about having to pay his own way as being the blame of pensioners, majority of whom live on a fraction of said whining git. You could not make it up, next it will be homeless and unemployed should be taxed so he can live in even more splendour, rotten to the core.
  • eekeek Posts: 29,399
    edited July 2021

    Indeed. So why don't we do that then? Oh year, because refugees are all fake and will simultaneously take all the jobs and all the benefits...
    I seem to recall that we are currently discussing with Denmark on create a joint offshore processing centre somewhere in Africa.

    This https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/06/28/uk-wants-send-asylum-seekers-offshore-centers-after-denmark-passes-similar-law/ refers to a Times article (as the Times is paywalled I will use the Washington Post link).
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 44,872
    darkage said:


    The key is working out the fundamentals: Childcare is a killer in the early years. Housing is another one which is linked to working out the schooling, you need to work all that out very early on; because it is not desirable to change schools. These things will, by themselves, impose vast costs - for most people it means moving house or relocating.

    The other spending is discretionary and basically optional - clothing, toys, holidays etc.

    Many people stumble in to this accidentally, I know lots of people with young kids who are in leased houses with no capital built up; it doesn't provide much stability for the children.

    One of my red lines before having a kid was owning a house, given our experiences of being turfed out of a couple of rented places through no fault of our own. We were fortunate that we could afford to buy one.

    I look at friends with young kids in rented places, and they can have lots of problems: from landlords not letting stair gates be put up (or saying it will cost some of the deposit) to having to move with a nine-month old baby. I've heard rumours of worse, though not involving people I know.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,180

    On @Cyclefree piece, which is very good - all good points.

    But, for me, I am still left utterly bewildered that a government is such a mess, making so many mistakes every single day, switching policies on what seems an hourly basis has been given a total free pass by the public. No sign of mid term blues and an opposition pick up the polls.

    Have we ever seen such a situation in recent times? Did even Thatch not have mid term blues?

    I can only suggest that like roger, et al, you are just too clever to understand what has happened.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,278
    edited July 2021

    Teachers cost money. TAs cost money. Books and computers cost money. School buildings well maintained cost money. £2.2bn is a drop in the ocean. And "effective teachers focused on the basics" is an attack on teachers who as results aren't there clearly aren't effective or focused.

    Like I said, you're a screaming hypocrite on this. But as that seems to be most issues its not a surprise.
    Ensuring primary school teachers are focused on basic literacy and numeracy rather than too much trendy educational theory would also be a help
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 14,157


    Do similar to what the Australians did.

    Essentially write a giant cheque to a safe but poor African nation that any asylum seekers will be sent and processed there. Anyone who comes to the UK gets immediately put on a plane there instead.

    The application can then be processed properly and if its rejected (because eg they came from France and not from a country they're being persecuted from) then they don't need to be deported since they're already not in the country.

    There'll be at least one safe but poor country willing to take our money for such an arrangement, especially since the moment that's put in place and followed through upon people will cease to pay people smugglers to take them to Britain since they know they won't end up in Britain anymore.

    Instead of then having refugees via people smugglers, we can humanely then take our fair share of refugees direct in safe and organised flights from the frontline.

    Problem solved.

    Problem not remotely solved. Once they have arrived they are entitled to the protection of the British legal system. Legal appeals will be lodged and heard before the minibus full of unfortunates gets to the idling jet on the ramp at Manston.

    Australia deliberately excised Christmas Island (where the vast majority of their arrivals pitched up) from the Australian Migration Zone to circumvent this legal issue. The RAN also did tow backs, which probably has a much stronger deterrent value, to Indonesia.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    HYUFD said:

    Overall net migration to the UK fell by its largest amount for 6 years in 2019, Patel's points system just ensures EU and non EU migrants are dealt with under the same criteria.

    https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-net-migration-falls/

    The tax take as a percentage of gdp overall was 23% in 1997 which had risen to 26.5% by the end of the Brown years and is now about 25%
    https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/tax-revenue-percent-of-gdp-wb-data.html
    That's a completely fake and garbage percentage that should be ignored. Nobody sane uses that percentage. For one thing it excludes National Insurance, which is of course complete garbage since NI is a non-ringfenced tax like any other tax.

    "In 2019/20, UK government revenues – or public sector current receipts
    – were £828 billion. This is equivalent to 37% of GDP. "
    https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8513/CBP-8513.pdf

    Personally I think when making comparisons by year tax as a percentage of GDP should include the budget deficit for that year too, since a budget deficit is a tax on the future.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 16,261
    eek said:

    Don't you mean the basics?

    I suspect it would make sense to put additional focus on writing English as well as reading it.
    Primary schools already relentlessly focused on the basics or the three Rs as they are frequently referred to (the fact that only one actually starts with R perhaps gives an unintended insight into educational standards). To the extent that there's not enough time devoted to creativity and the arts, in my opinion.
    The issue, to the extent there is one (our kids all got/are getting a great KS1/2 education) is in class sizes and support for those that struggle. Our primary class sizes are a lot bigger than the OECD average. But changing that costs money.
    My personal solution to improving education is simple: ban all MPs, political donors and senior civil servants from using private education. You would be amazed how well resourced state schools would suddenly become.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    MrEd said:

    ...even though the effects of downing a bottle of 14% red wine every night are probably worse overall than smoking 10 cigs.

    Citation needed. (And in any case the two are not remotely equivalent - drinking a whole bottle of 14% wine per day is on the extreme end of alcohol consumption amongst drinkers, whereas 10 cigs a day is on the moderate end of the range amongst smokers).
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    darkage said:

    I agree. NI is unfair - it is particularly bad for penalising people with high salaries. If you can find a way of paying yourself by dividend through self employment you avoid a vast amount of tax.
    And you get to bitch and moan when you don’t get furlough payments as a result of your tax minimisation strategy
  • eekeek Posts: 29,399

    The international refugee crisis is a massive problem for the west and can only be fixed via cooperation. The starter for 10 is spend money on international development to make their home countries less shitty and dangerous. Followed by close cooperation at regional level to distribute refugees more evenly to create less local problems.

    The UK of course wants none of that. The forrin can do one. "Why can't they settle in France" or "They have to settle in the first safe country" is simply unsustainable - remember the refugee crisis on Lesbos, the first safe place many arrived at?

    When people make those statements what they want is zero refugees. Only people arriving here direct from their unsafe country by air could claim - which is basically none at all.

    "Global Britain" is either part of the international community, playing our role in this crisis, or we are not. Farage and his supporters want the Global Community to give all that we want whilst we give nothing that they want. For the refugees that means no boats coming from France and if the French won't take them back and they drown then thats the Frogs fault for not stopping them leaving.
    The fact is they don't need to settle in the first country they come to which (because France and other countries know and understand that point ) makes it worth their time to make it uncomfortable for unregistered refugees so they decide to move on rather than trying to register in France / Italy....
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 44,872

    Teachers cost money. TAs cost money. Books and computers cost money. School buildings well maintained cost money. £2.2bn is a drop in the ocean. And "effective teachers focused on the basics" is an attack on teachers who as results aren't there clearly aren't effective or focused.

    Like I said, you're a screaming hypocrite on this. But as that seems to be most issues its not a surprise.
    Actually, it can be a question of where the money is focussed. 'We' tend to see a successful school as being one where pupils get top marks; I prefer metrics where as many kids as possible get the basics right. Intelligent kids can often teach themselves, especially nowadays.

    Reading, writing and arithmetic are the fundamental building blocks of an education. The best teachers and most resources should be put into those areas, early on. If the kids cannot read and write by the time they leave primary school, they'll find things much harder and much more resources will have to be spent on them in school to catch up.

    Oh, and helping parents at home as well. Dolly Parton should get a Nobel prize for her work in the US. (*)

    (I am not in education, so I daresay Dr Y and others will laugh at this...)

    (*) I didn't realise that she does this in the UK as well: https://imaginationlibrary.com/uk/
This discussion has been closed.