The Archbishop’s attack on the small boats plan makes several front pages – politicalbetting.com

Roger said:

Someone upthread just used the ugly old trope ' .......City the size of Birmingham'

At your next UKIP meeting why not suggest updating it to 'Four towns the size of Harlepool?

What is your beef with the people of Hartlepool? Were you molested by them when younger?

Dialup said:

tlg86 said:

Anabobazina said:

tlg86 said:

Anabobazina said:

Dialup said:

The London Underground is and remains publicly owned and in general performs well. I am so glad the Tories did not privatise that.

It’s the most popular network in the country and runs pretty well as you say. Crossrail too is nationalised and is excellent.

Crossrail (Elizabeth line) is most certainly not nationalised.

It’s a contractor for TfL. Only “not nationalised” if you consider hospitals privatised because they use private contractors.

Plenty on the left object to that.

I don't think franchises are/were that different to be honest. Ultimately, the railways are owned by the government.

Personally I feel we've tried privatisation and it hasn't worked.

The Government accepts that without subsidies the railways would/do go bust, so what exactly is the point?

Is anyone honestly going to tell me that if all of the "franchises" were run by the government, the service would be any better or worse?

The problem is that we've gutted the expertise and knowledge of the system, which came from over a hundred years of experience. All gone. We no longer own any of the trains, they're all owned and leased by third parties who make a killing.

Nationalisation is not a silver bullet. But at least we could cut out the pointless third party companies and try and build an integrated system that isn't so fragmented.

Do you remember British Rail in the ‘80s? Pretty much the definition of managing decline, down to the 1950s ‘slam door’ rolling stock on commuter routes, and engines belching diesel fumes on the InterCity routes.

Rail use is up massively since then, and almost the whole network has been modernised.

The biggest problem with public ownership, is that it would pitch the rail system against the NHS in the annual spending round. Guess what wins?

Dialup said:

tlg86 said:

Anabobazina said:

Dialup said:

The London Underground is and remains publicly owned and in general performs well. I am so glad the Tories did not privatise that.

It’s the most popular network in the country and runs pretty well as you say. Crossrail too is nationalised and is excellent.

Crossrail (Elizabeth line) is most certainly not nationalised.

It isn't "nationalised" but runs far more like London Overground than any of the franchises do.

Personally I cannot see the advantage of that but that's a better solution than franchising.

It’s as near as dammit to being

Dialup said:

tlg86 said:

Anabobazina said:

tlg86 said:

Anabobazina said:

Dialup said:

The London Underground is and remains publicly owned and in general performs well. I am so glad the Tories did not privatise that.

It’s the most popular network in the country and runs pretty well as you say. Crossrail too is nationalised and is excellent.

Crossrail (Elizabeth line) is most certainly not nationalised.

It’s a contractor for TfL. Only “not nationalised” if you consider hospitals privatised because they use private contractors.

Plenty on the left object to that.

I don't think franchises are/were that different to be honest. Ultimately, the railways are owned by the government.

Personally I feel we've tried privatisation and it hasn't worked.

The Government accepts that without subsidies the railways would/do go bust, so what exactly is the point?

Is anyone honestly going to tell me that if all of the "franchises" were run by the government, the service would be any better or worse?

The problem is that we've gutted the expertise and knowledge of the system, which came from over a hundred years of experience. All gone. We no longer own any of the trains, they're all owned and leased by third parties who make a killing.

Nationalisation is not a silver bullet. But at least we could cut out the pointless third party companies and try and build an integrated system that isn't so fragmented.

The public wants one arse to kick if and when things go wrong: that of the government. As it is, they all blame each other and sometimes refuse to honour each others’ tickets because they are “separate companies”. The whole thing is an unmitigated shambles.

Farooq said:

Sandpit said:

Dialup said:

tlg86 said:

Anabobazina said:

tlg86 said:

Anabobazina said:

Dialup said:

The London Underground is and remains publicly owned and in general performs well. I am so glad the Tories did not privatise that.

It’s the most popular network in the country and runs pretty well as you say. Crossrail too is nationalised and is excellent.

Crossrail (Elizabeth line) is most certainly not nationalised.

It’s a contractor for TfL. Only “not nationalised” if you consider hospitals privatised because they use private contractors.

Plenty on the left object to that.

I don't think franchises are/were that different to be honest. Ultimately, the railways are owned by the government.

Personally I feel we've tried privatisation and it hasn't worked.

The Government accepts that without subsidies the railways would/do go bust, so what exactly is the point?

Is anyone honestly going to tell me that if all of the "franchises" were run by the government, the service would be any better or worse?

The problem is that we've gutted the expertise and knowledge of the system, which came from over a hundred years of experience. All gone. We no longer own any of the trains, they're all owned and leased by third parties who make a killing.

Nationalisation is not a silver bullet. But at least we could cut out the pointless third party companies and try and build an integrated system that isn't so fragmented.

Do you remember British Rail in the ‘80s? Pretty much the definition of managing decline, down to the 1950s ‘slam door’ rolling stock on commuter routes, and engines belching diesel fumes on the InterCity routes.

Rail use is up massively since then, and almost the whole network has been modernised.

The biggest problem with public ownership, is that it would pitch the rail system against the NHS in the annual spending round. Guess what wins?

Why would nationalising the trains mean the government has a higher net spend? Wouldn't they also receive all the money from ticket sales?

Ticket sales? Don’t you mean extra money for the NHS?

Interesting (yes, really) long read on Aussie beef exports to the UK, which busts a number of popular myths:

https://www.beefcentral.com/news/a-deep-dive-into-what-the-uk-free-trade-agreement-means-for-aussie-beef/

(Summary: not much will come to begin with, trade will develop slowly, Ireland has most to lose in the long term)

As for NHS vs trains, that already happens. Subsidies are at the highest level they've ever been.

It's not like right now the Government isn't already paying. They are, we are. We just have it going abroad.

Sandpit said:

Farooq said:

Sandpit said:

Dialup said:

tlg86 said:

Anabobazina said:

tlg86 said:

Anabobazina said:

Dialup said:

The London Underground is and remains publicly owned and in general performs well. I am so glad the Tories did not privatise that.

It’s the most popular network in the country and runs pretty well as you say. Crossrail too is nationalised and is excellent.

Crossrail (Elizabeth line) is most certainly not nationalised.

It’s a contractor for TfL. Only “not nationalised” if you consider hospitals privatised because they use private contractors.

Plenty on the left object to that.

I don't think franchises are/were that different to be honest. Ultimately, the railways are owned by the government.

Personally I feel we've tried privatisation and it hasn't worked.

The Government accepts that without subsidies the railways would/do go bust, so what exactly is the point?

Is anyone honestly going to tell me that if all of the "franchises" were run by the government, the service would be any better or worse?

The problem is that we've gutted the expertise and knowledge of the system, which came from over a hundred years of experience. All gone. We no longer own any of the trains, they're all owned and leased by third parties who make a killing.

Nationalisation is not a silver bullet. But at least we could cut out the pointless third party companies and try and build an integrated system that isn't so fragmented.

Do you remember British Rail in the ‘80s? Pretty much the definition of managing decline, down to the 1950s ‘slam door’ rolling stock on commuter routes, and engines belching diesel fumes on the InterCity routes.

Rail use is up massively since then, and almost the whole network has been modernised.

The biggest problem with public ownership, is that it would pitch the rail system against the NHS in the annual spending round. Guess what wins?

Why would nationalising the trains mean the government has a higher net spend? Wouldn't they also receive all the money from ticket sales?

It’s not to do with day-to-day spending, although a nationalised company would be more in hock to the unions, but more to do with the investment projects, most of which cover several political cycles.

ROFL have you been outside lately? The trains are already on strike

Sandpit said:

Dialup said:

tlg86 said:

Anabobazina said:

tlg86 said:

Anabobazina said:

Dialup said:

The London Underground is and remains publicly owned and in general performs well. I am so glad the Tories did not privatise that.

It’s the most popular network in the country and runs pretty well as you say. Crossrail too is nationalised and is excellent.

Crossrail (Elizabeth line) is most certainly not nationalised.

It’s a contractor for TfL. Only “not nationalised” if you consider hospitals privatised because they use private contractors.

Plenty on the left object to that.

I don't think franchises are/were that different to be honest. Ultimately, the railways are owned by the government.

Personally I feel we've tried privatisation and it hasn't worked.

The Government accepts that without subsidies the railways would/do go bust, so what exactly is the point?

Is anyone honestly going to tell me that if all of the "franchises" were run by the government, the service would be any better or worse?

The problem is that we've gutted the expertise and knowledge of the system, which came from over a hundred years of experience. All gone. We no longer own any of the trains, they're all owned and leased by third parties who make a killing.

Nationalisation is not a silver bullet. But at least we could cut out the pointless third party companies and try and build an integrated system that isn't so fragmented.

Do you remember British Rail in the ‘80s? Pretty much the definition of managing decline, down to the 1950s ‘slam door’ rolling stock on commuter routes, and engines belching diesel fumes on the InterCity routes.

Rail use is up massively since then, and almost the whole network has been modernised.

The biggest problem with public ownership, is that it would pitch the rail system against the NHS in the annual spending round. Guess what wins?

You’ve conflated two things. Your final point is correct, but that is the only reason that investment in the current system is objectively better. The private sector has done nothing magical, and on the railways is in many ways much worse, it has just provided cover to ring fence government funding.

If we need to be infantilised like that then we should be shamed. It’s like those who argued to stay in the EU so an outside entity could protect certain rights.

Andy_JS said:

Prediction: if the polls still show an average Labour lead of 15% or more in the autumn, a lot of Tory MPs will start to talk about a leadership challenge.

The only conceivable, viable replacement would be Johnson.

I can’t see it happening.

Someone other than Johnson would be completely absurd. 4 PM’s between elections? Mental. Their best hope to retain what little credibility the conservative brand has, is to go down to an honourable defeat under Sunak.

Kemi Badenoch criticised by ERG chief and other Tories over ‘massive climbdown’ on retained EU law
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/may/11/brexit-eu-law-rishi-sunak-jacob-rees-mogg-latest-news-updates

Dialup said:

As for NHS vs trains, that already happens. Subsidies are at the highest level they've ever been.

It's not like right now the Government isn't already paying. They are, we are. We just have it going abroad.

We've given privatisation a good few decades now. The public doesn't like it (even Tory voters don't like it!). Just ideological blindness from Tory govt stopping it now.

WillG said:

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

At least Trump won't be able to argue political bias on the part of the jury in any appeal he might make.

Trump lawyer rejected claim that juror’s political affiliation signified bias
A newly unsealed filing in the E. Jean Carroll case reveals how Trump successfully kept a listener of a far-right podcast on the jury.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/10/trump-lawyer-e-jean-carroll-jurors-00096308
...“A juror’s political affiliation is not grounds for dismissal, even in cases involving a political figure,” said Trump lawyer Joe Tacopina in a May 2 filing that was unsealed by U.S. District Court Judge Lewis Kaplan on Wednesday. Kaplan ultimately sided with Tacopina’s argument, leaving the juror in place.
Tacopina was responding to an April 30 motion by the plaintiff, E. Jean Carroll, to disqualify the juror — identified only as “Juror No. 77.” Carroll’s legal team wanted him disqualified for “inferred bias” based on his acknowledgement that he listened to Pool’s show a few times over the last six months.

“Juror No. 77 has described Pool’s podcast as ‘independent,’ ‘middle,’ and ‘balanced.’ A juror who views Pool’s podcast in that way may subjectively believe that he has no relevant bias, but has just as certainly confirmed that he does,” an attorney for Carroll wrote in the motion. “No person capable of deciding this case fairly and impartially would seek out only Pool’s content, rely on YouTube to promote other content based on Pool’s podcast, and maintain that Pool’s commentary is indeed ‘middle’ and ‘balanced.’”..

LOL, Tim Pool is most definitely not ‘far right’, he’s economically centrist and libertarian, although he thinks that Trump is the best on offer at the moment.

There does however appear to be a co-ordinated smear campaign against him at the moment. His daily podcast gets 300-400k views, and he gets another couple of million views from clips and other shorts.

There is no way anyone remotely centrist can consider the pseudo-fascist Trump is a better offer than the center left Biden.

Plenty of Americans do.

Pool’s having a lot of fun with it on Twitter though, and he probably gets another 100k subscribers this week.

https://twitter.com/timcast

WillG said:

Dialup said:

Sandpit said:

Do you remember British Rail in the ‘80s? Pretty much the definition of managing decline, down to the 1950s ‘slam door’ rolling stock on commuter routes, and engines belching diesel fumes on the InterCity routes.

Rail use is up massively since then, and almost the whole network has been modernised.

The biggest problem with public ownership, is that it would pitch the rail system against the NHS in the annual spending round. Guess what wins?

Do you actually use the trains though? I do, every day.

The system is shit, it is incredibly expensive, over-crowded, the trains are always late, old. A lot of them still run on diesel.

I am not saying BR wasn't shit. I am saying that what we have now is still shit compared to basically every other country's system. If it wasn't so expensive I could forgive it.

But it isn't. £60 return to Waterloo and the train was delayed by 45 minutes. Tell me how that is acceptable. If I was 45 minutes late to a meeting I'd be sacked.

The main reason the trains are overcrowded are the same reason the publicly owned underground is overcrowded and the same reason the roads are overcrowded and the same reason the housing stock is overcrowded. Huge population growth, driven by immigration.

NO - the problem is the British tendency to try an do something at minimum cost then shave 10% off that then review it, put it on hold, downgrade it and finally build it at half the capacity needed to "save money".

If things were done properly, capacity would be a lot better, but we try and do everything on the cheap!

Sandpit said:

Dialup said:

Sandpit said:

Farooq said:

Sandpit said:

Dialup said:

tlg86 said:

Anabobazina said:

tlg86 said:

Anabobazina said:

Dialup said:

The London Underground is and remains publicly owned and in general performs well. I am so glad the Tories did not privatise that.

It’s the most popular network in the country and runs pretty well as you say. Crossrail too is nationalised and is excellent.

Crossrail (Elizabeth line) is most certainly not nationalised.

It’s a contractor for TfL. Only “not nationalised” if you consider hospitals privatised because they use private contractors.

Plenty on the left object to that.

I don't think franchises are/were that different to be honest. Ultimately, the railways are owned by the government.

Personally I feel we've tried privatisation and it hasn't worked.

The Government accepts that without subsidies the railways would/do go bust, so what exactly is the point?

Is anyone honestly going to tell me that if all of the "franchises" were run by the government, the service would be any better or worse?

The problem is that we've gutted the expertise and knowledge of the system, which came from over a hundred years of experience. All gone. We no longer own any of the trains, they're all owned and leased by third parties who make a killing.

Nationalisation is not a silver bullet. But at least we could cut out the pointless third party companies and try and build an integrated system that isn't so fragmented.

Do you remember British Rail in the ‘80s? Pretty much the definition of managing decline, down to the 1950s ‘slam door’ rolling stock on commuter routes, and engines belching diesel fumes on the InterCity routes.

Rail use is up massively since then, and almost the whole network has been modernised.

The biggest problem with public ownership, is that it would pitch the rail system against the NHS in the annual spending round. Guess what wins?

Why would nationalising the trains mean the government has a higher net spend? Wouldn't they also receive all the money from ticket sales?

It’s not to do with day-to-day spending, although a nationalised company would be more in hock to the unions, but more to do with the investment projects, most of which cover several political cycles.

ROFL have you been outside lately? The trains are already on strike

Where I am, the trains are driverless

Last time I was in the UK, in December, the trains worked well on non-strike days.

I had a really lucky experience the other week. I was coming down from Stockport when the driver came on with a really grim announcement. I thought London had been nuked. He asked us to tell people wearing earphones to take them out. A bit of a worrying start to the announcement. No trains were going to London. All were stopping at Milton Keynes. Currently there are no plans for alternative travel as it is mayhem. You can get off at Crewe and return to Manchester and get a full refund. I stayed.

A bit later we were told we would be arriving but we would be very very late and told how to get a refund.

We actually arrived 7 minutes early. Euston was in absolute chaos. Only 2 or 3 out of hundreds of trains running and people fighting to get on those trains. I sailed through the lot totally impacted and I don't believe in God either

WillG said:

Dura_Ace said:

Sandpit said:

eek said:

Sandpit said:

bondegezou said:

Malmesbury said:

A

Towerbridge said:

glw said:

Heathener said:

It's appalling but I'm probably in a minority. Especially my view that with chronic labour shortages across many sectors the answer to get Britain's economy booming is, er, migration.

We have very high net migration right now. Half a million more people, net, for the last year. That means just to meet the needs of migrants we need to build an entire Birmingham sized city, and all associated infrastructure, every couple of years. We are not coming remotely close to that.

Is there any number of migrants that you would call too many?

Im not a believer in putting set numbers of migrants as a limit. Immigration has immensely benefited this country over the last 50 years. We now have a more cosmopolitan outward looking population.

What if 6 billion people arrived in the U.K. next week?

Everything has limits. Just because the subject makes you uncomfortable, doesn’t make it go away.

I say build a Birmingham each year to cope with the increasing population. Then you hear people whining both about restrictions on immigration *and* wanting the country not to change.

If you want a more “cosmopolitan” population then you are either in favour of more Birminghams or you are an idiot. Pick one.

I don’t know that I’m favour of the current Birmingham, let alone more of them. There must be a way of accommodating an increasing population without building more Birminghams. Can we build more Milton Keyneses?

Either way, the current high rates of immigration are Conservative Party policy. If people don’t like them, vote out the Conservatives.

Population of MK is 250k, so there need to be two more MKs built every year, just to stand still on housing the population increase. Which means in practice three or four new MKs per year, for the next few years.

A tweet from earlier today (from a source I would trust to have accurate figures) reckons 700,000 immigrants arrived last year.

So it's 3 Milton Keynes a year and 2 of them probably need to be in the South East.

Yes, although 250k are Ukranians, of whom more than 80% are living with families on what’s presumably a temporary basis. There were a couple of hundred thousand from HK as well, which was a one-off but they still need housing. There were also a couple of hundred thousand who left the country last year, so net immigration is closer to 500k.

Sandpit said:

eek said:

Sandpit said:

bondegezou said:

Malmesbury said:

A

Towerbridge said:

glw said:

Heathener said:

It's appalling but I'm probably in a minority. Especially my view that with chronic labour shortages across many sectors the answer to get Britain's economy booming is, er, migration.

We have very high net migration right now. Half a million more people, net, for the last year. That means just to meet the needs of migrants we need to build an entire Birmingham sized city, and all associated infrastructure, every couple of years. We are not coming remotely close to that.

Is there any number of migrants that you would call too many?

Im not a believer in putting set numbers of migrants as a limit. Immigration has immensely benefited this country over the last 50 years. We now have a more cosmopolitan outward looking population.

What if 6 billion people arrived in the U.K. next week?

Everything has limits. Just because the subject makes you uncomfortable, doesn’t make it go away.

I say build a Birmingham each year to cope with the increasing population. Then you hear people whining both about restrictions on immigration *and* wanting the country not to change.

If you want a more “cosmopolitan” population then you are either in favour of more Birminghams or you are an idiot. Pick one.

I don’t know that I’m favour of the current Birmingham, let alone more of them. There must be a way of accommodating an increasing population without building more Birminghams. Can we build more Milton Keyneses?

Either way, the current high rates of immigration are Conservative Party policy. If people don’t like them, vote out the Conservatives.

Population of MK is 250k, so there need to be two more MKs built every year, just to stand still on housing the population increase. Which means in practice three or four new MKs per year, for the next few years.

A tweet from earlier today (from a source I would trust to have accurate figures) reckons 700,000 immigrants arrived last year.

So it's 3 Milton Keynes a year and 2 of them probably need to be in the South East.

Yes, although 250k are Ukranians, of whom more than 80% are living with families on what’s presumably a temporary basis. There were a couple of hundred thousand from HK as well, which was a one-off but they still need housing. There were also a couple of hundred thousand who left the country last year, so net immigration is closer to 500k.

Well, it is "tens of thousands" as promised by Cameron. Just 50 tens.

I don't know why gammons get sand in the vag over the channel boats. The numbers are inconsequential compared to the tory mass inward migration project.

Its alwaus amusing when the open borders brigade get to a point in the debate where they run out of logical arguments so throw out racist slurs as a way to divert attentiom from their weak position. Positively Trumpian.

The net migration figure is nonsense. I suppose we might have a good idea of the inflows but no one counts the outflows. The figures come for stopping perhaps 1 in 500 passengers at airports and asking them why they are travelling!
Some presumably say they are emigrating but the system is not very reliable. My son went to Australia and daughter to Spain - they just stayed there you don't have to tell anyone you have left.

Dialup said:

WillG said:

Dialup said:

Sandpit said:

Do you remember British Rail in the ‘80s? Pretty much the definition of managing decline, down to the 1950s ‘slam door’ rolling stock on commuter routes, and engines belching diesel fumes on the InterCity routes.

Rail use is up massively since then, and almost the whole network has been modernised.

The biggest problem with public ownership, is that it would pitch the rail system against the NHS in the annual spending round. Guess what wins?

Do you actually use the trains though? I do, every day.

The system is shit, it is incredibly expensive, over-crowded, the trains are always late, old. A lot of them still run on diesel.

I am not saying BR wasn't shit. I am saying that what we have now is still shit compared to basically every other country's system. If it wasn't so expensive I could forgive it.

But it isn't. £60 return to Waterloo and the train was delayed by 45 minutes. Tell me how that is acceptable. If I was 45 minutes late to a meeting I'd be sacked.

The main reason the trains are overcrowded are the same reason the publicly owned underground is overcrowded and the same reason the roads are overcrowded and the same reason the housing stock is overcrowded. Huge population growth, driven by immigration.

How is overcrowding responsible for the signal failure at Woking?

Overcrowding leads to pressure to put more services on. The more services that run, the less the time there is for maintenance and renewals between trains, and the harder it becomes to get services running normally after any failure.

Nigelb said:

Kemi Badenoch criticised by ERG chief and other Tories over ‘massive climbdown’ on retained EU law
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/may/11/brexit-eu-law-rishi-sunak-jacob-rees-mogg-latest-news-updates

Told you all.

Lay the useless Badenoch.

Sandpit said:

Dialup said:

tlg86 said:

Anabobazina said:

tlg86 said:

Anabobazina said:

Dialup said:

The London Underground is and remains publicly owned and in general performs well. I am so glad the Tories did not privatise that.

It’s the most popular network in the country and runs pretty well as you say. Crossrail too is nationalised and is excellent.

Crossrail (Elizabeth line) is most certainly not nationalised.

It’s a contractor for TfL. Only “not nationalised” if you consider hospitals privatised because they use private contractors.

Plenty on the left object to that.

I don't think franchises are/were that different to be honest. Ultimately, the railways are owned by the government.

Personally I feel we've tried privatisation and it hasn't worked.

The Government accepts that without subsidies the railways would/do go bust, so what exactly is the point?

Is anyone honestly going to tell me that if all of the "franchises" were run by the government, the service would be any better or worse?

The problem is that we've gutted the expertise and knowledge of the system, which came from over a hundred years of experience. All gone. We no longer own any of the trains, they're all owned and leased by third parties who make a killing.

Nationalisation is not a silver bullet. But at least we could cut out the pointless third party companies and try and build an integrated system that isn't so fragmented.

Do you remember British Rail in the ‘80s? Pretty much the definition of managing decline, down to the 1950s ‘slam door’ rolling stock on commuter routes, and engines belching diesel fumes on the InterCity routes.

Rail use is up massively since then, and almost the whole network has been modernised.

The biggest problem with public ownership, is that it would pitch the rail system against the NHS in the annual spending round. Guess what wins?

I do remmber BR in the 1980s. It was improving considerably and visibly. the IC125s had been got working, and very well, and the 225s were coming on the ECML. And the connections were there. I had to travel across country many times and it was much safer to rely on that than on, say, a CC or Transpennine connection to ECML.

Interest rate 4.5 % by 7 to 2

Dialup said:

The thing is BR was shit. But it doesn't mean anyone is advocating going back to it, or that if we nationalised the trains today, it would be bad.

Why has no other country in Europe followed our lead?

Try travelling on a Franch railway other than the TGV. Try commuting into Paris (as I did for many years). Try travelling up the Loire Valley on a rural train rather than the TGV. (Actually do try this as long as you are doing it once. It is very...rustic.)

If you have to do it on a regular basis they are just as shit as the UK system.

Icarus said:

WillG said:

Dura_Ace said:

Sandpit said:

eek said:

Sandpit said:

bondegezou said:

Malmesbury said:

A

Towerbridge said:

glw said:

Heathener said:

It's appalling but I'm probably in a minority. Especially my view that with chronic labour shortages across many sectors the answer to get Britain's economy booming is, er, migration.

We have very high net migration right now. Half a million more people, net, for the last year. That means just to meet the needs of migrants we need to build an entire Birmingham sized city, and all associated infrastructure, every couple of years. We are not coming remotely close to that.

Is there any number of migrants that you would call too many?

Im not a believer in putting set numbers of migrants as a limit. Immigration has immensely benefited this country over the last 50 years. We now have a more cosmopolitan outward looking population.

What if 6 billion people arrived in the U.K. next week?

Everything has limits. Just because the subject makes you uncomfortable, doesn’t make it go away.

I say build a Birmingham each year to cope with the increasing population. Then you hear people whining both about restrictions on immigration *and* wanting the country not to change.

If you want a more “cosmopolitan” population then you are either in favour of more Birminghams or you are an idiot. Pick one.

I don’t know that I’m favour of the current Birmingham, let alone more of them. There must be a way of accommodating an increasing population without building more Birminghams. Can we build more Milton Keyneses?

Either way, the current high rates of immigration are Conservative Party policy. If people don’t like them, vote out the Conservatives.

Population of MK is 250k, so there need to be two more MKs built every year, just to stand still on housing the population increase. Which means in practice three or four new MKs per year, for the next few years.

A tweet from earlier today (from a source I would trust to have accurate figures) reckons 700,000 immigrants arrived last year.

So it's 3 Milton Keynes a year and 2 of them probably need to be in the South East.

Yes, although 250k are Ukranians, of whom more than 80% are living with families on what’s presumably a temporary basis. There were a couple of hundred thousand from HK as well, which was a one-off but they still need housing. There were also a couple of hundred thousand who left the country last year, so net immigration is closer to 500k.

Sandpit said:

eek said:

Sandpit said:

bondegezou said:

Malmesbury said:

A

Towerbridge said:

glw said:

Heathener said:

It's appalling but I'm probably in a minority. Especially my view that with chronic labour shortages across many sectors the answer to get Britain's economy booming is, er, migration.

We have very high net migration right now. Half a million more people, net, for the last year. That means just to meet the needs of migrants we need to build an entire Birmingham sized city, and all associated infrastructure, every couple of years. We are not coming remotely close to that.

Is there any number of migrants that you would call too many?

Im not a believer in putting set numbers of migrants as a limit. Immigration has immensely benefited this country over the last 50 years. We now have a more cosmopolitan outward looking population.

What if 6 billion people arrived in the U.K. next week?

Everything has limits. Just because the subject makes you uncomfortable, doesn’t make it go away.

I say build a Birmingham each year to cope with the increasing population. Then you hear people whining both about restrictions on immigration *and* wanting the country not to change.

If you want a more “cosmopolitan” population then you are either in favour of more Birminghams or you are an idiot. Pick one.

I don’t know that I’m favour of the current Birmingham, let alone more of them. There must be a way of accommodating an increasing population without building more Birminghams. Can we build more Milton Keyneses?

Either way, the current high rates of immigration are Conservative Party policy. If people don’t like them, vote out the Conservatives.

Population of MK is 250k, so there need to be two more MKs built every year, just to stand still on housing the population increase. Which means in practice three or four new MKs per year, for the next few years.

A tweet from earlier today (from a source I would trust to have accurate figures) reckons 700,000 immigrants arrived last year.

So it's 3 Milton Keynes a year and 2 of them probably need to be in the South East.

Yes, although 250k are Ukranians, of whom more than 80% are living with families on what’s presumably a temporary basis. There were a couple of hundred thousand from HK as well, which was a one-off but they still need housing. There were also a couple of hundred thousand who left the country last year, so net immigration is closer to 500k.

Well, it is "tens of thousands" as promised by Cameron. Just 50 tens.

I don't know why gammons get sand in the vag over the channel boats. The numbers are inconsequential compared to the tory mass inward migration project.

Its alwaus amusing when the open borders brigade get to a point in the debate where they run out of logical arguments so throw out racist slurs as a way to divert attentiom from their weak position. Positively Trumpian.

The net migration figure is nonsense. I suppose we might have a good idea of the inflows but no one counts the outflows. The figures come for stopping perhaps 1 in 500 passengers at airports and asking them why they are travelling!
Some presumably say they are emigrating but the system is not very reliable. My son went to Australia and daughter to Spain - they just stayed there you don't have to tell anyone you have left.

Net migration should be very simple to count tbh. Just inflows less outflows. You'll have an error from people on holiday/students (Or not) but I can't think of a better system.

E.g. Family goes on holiday. 4 people have emigrated according to the stats. Remarkably however they return back so the net migration is 0 at that point.
French family comes on holiday here. 4 people plus to immigration. But they head back. So net migration is again 0. The data should be easily available from air and seaports.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Interest rate 4.5 % by 7 to 2

They might go to 5.0% later this year.

But I expect CPI to drop in April when the April 2022 energy increases drop out, also due to falling petrol/diesel costs. Maybe to 8.5%. Food still going up. Maybe to 5% at year end but unlikely to be less.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Dialup said:

The thing is BR was shit. But it doesn't mean anyone is advocating going back to it, or that if we nationalised the trains today, it would be bad.

Why has no other country in Europe followed our lead?

Try travelling on a Franch railway other than the TGV. Try commuting into Paris (as I did for many years). Try travelling up the Loire Valley on a rural train rather than the TGV. (Actually do try this as long as you are doing it once. It is very...rustic.)

If you have to do it on a regular basis they are just as shit as the UK system.

Very true. Rather different in Switzerland where I am today. Excellent system.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Hurrah.

Interest rates go up again.

You always seem to cheer for things most people don't want. Do you pop the champers when Max Verstappen wins GPs ?

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:

Kemi Badenoch criticised by ERG chief and other Tories over ‘massive climbdown’ on retained EU law
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/may/11/brexit-eu-law-rishi-sunak-jacob-rees-mogg-latest-news-updates

Told you all.

Lay the useless Badenoch.

Rishi missed a trick by not keeping Rees-Mogg on and having him make the ignominious climbdown. He could have destroyed JRM's mystique and that of the ERG once and for all. As it is, Mogg is now prancing around acting like a messiah in exile. Poor tactics there.

londonpubman said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Interest rate 4.5 % by 7 to 2

They might go to 5.0% later this year.

But I expect CPI to drop in April when the April 2022 energy increases drop out, also due to falling petrol/diesel costs. Maybe to 8.5%. Food still going up. Maybe to 5% at year end but unlikely to be less.

https://news.sky.com/story/bank-of-england-interest-rate-increased-025-percentage-points-to-45-12878186

BlancheLivermore said:

Towerbridge said:

WillG said:

Dura_Ace said:

Sandpit said:

eek said:

Sandpit said:

bondegezou said:

Malmesbury said:

A

Towerbridge said:

glw said:

Heathener said:

It's appalling but I'm probably in a minority. Especially my view that with chronic labour shortages across many sectors the answer to get Britain's economy booming is, er, migration.

We have very high net migration right now. Half a million more people, net, for the last year. That means just to meet the needs of migrants we need to build an entire Birmingham sized city, and all associated infrastructure, every couple of years. We are not coming remotely close to that.

Is there any number of migrants that you would call too many?

Im not a believer in putting set numbers of migrants as a limit. Immigration has immensely benefited this country over the last 50 years. We now have a more cosmopolitan outward looking population.

What if 6 billion people arrived in the U.K. next week?

Everything has limits. Just because the subject makes you uncomfortable, doesn’t make it go away.

I say build a Birmingham each year to cope with the increasing population. Then you hear people whining both about restrictions on immigration *and* wanting the country not to change.

If you want a more “cosmopolitan” population then you are either in favour of more Birminghams or you are an idiot. Pick one.

I don’t know that I’m favour of the current Birmingham, let alone more of them. There must be a way of accommodating an increasing population without building more Birminghams. Can we build more Milton Keyneses?

Either way, the current high rates of immigration are Conservative Party policy. If people don’t like them, vote out the Conservatives.

Population of MK is 250k, so there need to be two more MKs built every year, just to stand still on housing the population increase. Which means in practice three or four new MKs per year, for the next few years.

A tweet from earlier today (from a source I would trust to have accurate figures) reckons 700,000 immigrants arrived last year.

So it's 3 Milton Keynes a year and 2 of them probably need to be in the South East.

Yes, although 250k are Ukranians, of whom more than 80% are living with families on what’s presumably a temporary basis. There were a couple of hundred thousand from HK as well, which was a one-off but they still need housing. There were also a couple of hundred thousand who left the country last year, so net immigration is closer to 500k.

Sandpit said:

eek said:

Sandpit said:

bondegezou said:

Malmesbury said:

A

Towerbridge said:

glw said:

Heathener said:

It's appalling but I'm probably in a minority. Especially my view that with chronic labour shortages across many sectors the answer to get Britain's economy booming is, er, migration.

We have very high net migration right now. Half a million more people, net, for the last year. That means just to meet the needs of migrants we need to build an entire Birmingham sized city, and all associated infrastructure, every couple of years. We are not coming remotely close to that.

Is there any number of migrants that you would call too many?

Im not a believer in putting set numbers of migrants as a limit. Immigration has immensely benefited this country over the last 50 years. We now have a more cosmopolitan outward looking population.

What if 6 billion people arrived in the U.K. next week?

Everything has limits. Just because the subject makes you uncomfortable, doesn’t make it go away.

I say build a Birmingham each year to cope with the increasing population. Then you hear people whining both about restrictions on immigration *and* wanting the country not to change.

If you want a more “cosmopolitan” population then you are either in favour of more Birminghams or you are an idiot. Pick one.

I don’t know that I’m favour of the current Birmingham, let alone more of them. There must be a way of accommodating an increasing population without building more Birminghams. Can we build more Milton Keyneses?

Either way, the current high rates of immigration are Conservative Party policy. If people don’t like them, vote out the Conservatives.

Population of MK is 250k, so there need to be two more MKs built every year, just to stand still on housing the population increase. Which means in practice three or four new MKs per year, for the next few years.

A tweet from earlier today (from a source I would trust to have accurate figures) reckons 700,000 immigrants arrived last year.

So it's 3 Milton Keynes a year and 2 of them probably need to be in the South East.

Yes, although 250k are Ukranians, of whom more than 80% are living with families on what’s presumably a temporary basis. There were a couple of hundred thousand from HK as well, which was a one-off but they still need housing. There were also a couple of hundred thousand who left the country last year, so net immigration is closer to 500k.

Well, it is "tens of thousands" as promised by Cameron. Just 50 tens.

I don't know why gammons get sand in the vag over the channel boats. The numbers are inconsequential compared to the tory mass inward migration project.

Its alwaus amusing when the open borders brigade get to a point in the debate where they run out of logical arguments so throw out racist slurs as a way to divert attentiom from their weak position. Positively Trumpian.

Your position would be more honest if you just admitted you dont like immigrants.

Bit of a one-trick pony, aren’t you?

You should meet Horse

He sounds like a wonderful chap, head really screwed on tight. Is there a reason you’re so obsessed with him?

Dialup said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Towerbridge said:

WillG said:

Dura_Ace said:

Sandpit said:

eek said:

Sandpit said:

bondegezou said:

Malmesbury said:

A

Towerbridge said:

glw said:

Heathener said:

It's appalling but I'm probably in a minority. Especially my view that with chronic labour shortages across many sectors the answer to get Britain's economy booming is, er, migration.

We have very high net migration right now. Half a million more people, net, for the last year. That means just to meet the needs of migrants we need to build an entire Birmingham sized city, and all associated infrastructure, every couple of years. We are not coming remotely close to that.

Is there any number of migrants that you would call too many?

Im not a believer in putting set numbers of migrants as a limit. Immigration has immensely benefited this country over the last 50 years. We now have a more cosmopolitan outward looking population.

What if 6 billion people arrived in the U.K. next week?

Everything has limits. Just because the subject makes you uncomfortable, doesn’t make it go away.

I say build a Birmingham each year to cope with the increasing population. Then you hear people whining both about restrictions on immigration *and* wanting the country not to change.

If you want a more “cosmopolitan” population then you are either in favour of more Birminghams or you are an idiot. Pick one.

I don’t know that I’m favour of the current Birmingham, let alone more of them. There must be a way of accommodating an increasing population without building more Birminghams. Can we build more Milton Keyneses?

Either way, the current high rates of immigration are Conservative Party policy. If people don’t like them, vote out the Conservatives.

Population of MK is 250k, so there need to be two more MKs built every year, just to stand still on housing the population increase. Which means in practice three or four new MKs per year, for the next few years.

A tweet from earlier today (from a source I would trust to have accurate figures) reckons 700,000 immigrants arrived last year.

So it's 3 Milton Keynes a year and 2 of them probably need to be in the South East.

Yes, although 250k are Ukranians, of whom more than 80% are living with families on what’s presumably a temporary basis. There were a couple of hundred thousand from HK as well, which was a one-off but they still need housing. There were also a couple of hundred thousand who left the country last year, so net immigration is closer to 500k.

Sandpit said:

eek said:

Sandpit said:

bondegezou said:

Malmesbury said:

A

Towerbridge said:

glw said:

Heathener said:

It's appalling but I'm probably in a minority. Especially my view that with chronic labour shortages across many sectors the answer to get Britain's economy booming is, er, migration.

We have very high net migration right now. Half a million more people, net, for the last year. That means just to meet the needs of migrants we need to build an entire Birmingham sized city, and all associated infrastructure, every couple of years. We are not coming remotely close to that.

Is there any number of migrants that you would call too many?

Im not a believer in putting set numbers of migrants as a limit. Immigration has immensely benefited this country over the last 50 years. We now have a more cosmopolitan outward looking population.

What if 6 billion people arrived in the U.K. next week?

Everything has limits. Just because the subject makes you uncomfortable, doesn’t make it go away.

I say build a Birmingham each year to cope with the increasing population. Then you hear people whining both about restrictions on immigration *and* wanting the country not to change.

If you want a more “cosmopolitan” population then you are either in favour of more Birminghams or you are an idiot. Pick one.

I don’t know that I’m favour of the current Birmingham, let alone more of them. There must be a way of accommodating an increasing population without building more Birminghams. Can we build more Milton Keyneses?

Either way, the current high rates of immigration are Conservative Party policy. If people don’t like them, vote out the Conservatives.

Population of MK is 250k, so there need to be two more MKs built every year, just to stand still on housing the population increase. Which means in practice three or four new MKs per year, for the next few years.

A tweet from earlier today (from a source I would trust to have accurate figures) reckons 700,000 immigrants arrived last year.

So it's 3 Milton Keynes a year and 2 of them probably need to be in the South East.

Yes, although 250k are Ukranians, of whom more than 80% are living with families on what’s presumably a temporary basis. There were a couple of hundred thousand from HK as well, which was a one-off but they still need housing. There were also a couple of hundred thousand who left the country last year, so net immigration is closer to 500k.

Well, it is "tens of thousands" as promised by Cameron. Just 50 tens.

I don't know why gammons get sand in the vag over the channel boats. The numbers are inconsequential compared to the tory mass inward migration project.

Its alwaus amusing when the open borders brigade get to a point in the debate where they run out of logical arguments so throw out racist slurs as a way to divert attentiom from their weak position. Positively Trumpian.

Your position would be more honest if you just admitted you dont like immigrants.

Bit of a one-trick pony, aren’t you?

You should meet Horse

He sounds like a wonderful chap, head really screwed on tight. Is there a reason you’re so obsessed with him?

I canter think why..

carnforth said:

TimS said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Dialup said:

The thing is BR was shit. But it doesn't mean anyone is advocating going back to it, or that if we nationalised the trains today, it would be bad.

Why has no other country in Europe followed our lead?

Try travelling on a Franch railway other than the TGV. Try commuting into Paris (as I did for many years). Try travelling up the Loire Valley on a rural train rather than the TGV. (Actually do try this as long as you are doing it once. It is very...rustic.)

If you have to do it on a regular basis they are just as shit as the UK system.

Very true. Rather different in Switzerland where I am today. Excellent system.

Unless you can't afford the ticket, in which case Switzerland will ban you from having a cheaper alternative, and you just can't travel:

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/business/market-liberalisation_government-against-allowing-foreign-inter-city-bus-operators/43610162

"Earlier this year, German company Flixbus was fined CHF3,000 ($3,066) as passengers were using its coaches on the Lyon to Constance route for cut-price inter-city travel within Switzerland. The buses stop at Geneva, Bern and Zurich. For comparison, a ticket on the Swiss Federal Railways between Geneva and Zurich costs CHF44.50 while a Flixbus ticket from Lyon to Constance is a mere CHF20."

They’re a bit like that. Oddly Uber is allowed in Switzerland though, unlike a number of other places.

I just picked up an Uber from the airport to my client’s office. Then halfway remembered that I’d already booked a hire car. So got him to turn around and take me back. An hour later I’m finally heading to the car park.

BlancheLivermore said:

Dialup said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Towerbridge said:

WillG said:

Dura_Ace said:

Sandpit said:

eek said:

Sandpit said:

bondegezou said:

Malmesbury said:

A

Towerbridge said:

glw said:

Heathener said:

It's appalling but I'm probably in a minority. Especially my view that with chronic labour shortages across many sectors the answer to get Britain's economy booming is, er, migration.

We have very high net migration right now. Half a million more people, net, for the last year. That means just to meet the needs of migrants we need to build an entire Birmingham sized city, and all associated infrastructure, every couple of years. We are not coming remotely close to that.

Is there any number of migrants that you would call too many?

Im not a believer in putting set numbers of migrants as a limit. Immigration has immensely benefited this country over the last 50 years. We now have a more cosmopolitan outward looking population.

What if 6 billion people arrived in the U.K. next week?

Everything has limits. Just because the subject makes you uncomfortable, doesn’t make it go away.

I say build a Birmingham each year to cope with the increasing population. Then you hear people whining both about restrictions on immigration *and* wanting the country not to change.

If you want a more “cosmopolitan” population then you are either in favour of more Birminghams or you are an idiot. Pick one.

I don’t know that I’m favour of the current Birmingham, let alone more of them. There must be a way of accommodating an increasing population without building more Birminghams. Can we build more Milton Keyneses?

Either way, the current high rates of immigration are Conservative Party policy. If people don’t like them, vote out the Conservatives.

Population of MK is 250k, so there need to be two more MKs built every year, just to stand still on housing the population increase. Which means in practice three or four new MKs per year, for the next few years.

A tweet from earlier today (from a source I would trust to have accurate figures) reckons 700,000 immigrants arrived last year.

So it's 3 Milton Keynes a year and 2 of them probably need to be in the South East.

Yes, although 250k are Ukranians, of whom more than 80% are living with families on what’s presumably a temporary basis. There were a couple of hundred thousand from HK as well, which was a one-off but they still need housing. There were also a couple of hundred thousand who left the country last year, so net immigration is closer to 500k.

Sandpit said:

eek said:

Sandpit said:

bondegezou said:

Malmesbury said:

A

Towerbridge said:

glw said:

Heathener said:

It's appalling but I'm probably in a minority. Especially my view that with chronic labour shortages across many sectors the answer to get Britain's economy booming is, er, migration.

We have very high net migration right now. Half a million more people, net, for the last year. That means just to meet the needs of migrants we need to build an entire Birmingham sized city, and all associated infrastructure, every couple of years. We are not coming remotely close to that.

Is there any number of migrants that you would call too many?

Im not a believer in putting set numbers of migrants as a limit. Immigration has immensely benefited this country over the last 50 years. We now have a more cosmopolitan outward looking population.

What if 6 billion people arrived in the U.K. next week?

Everything has limits. Just because the subject makes you uncomfortable, doesn’t make it go away.

I say build a Birmingham each year to cope with the increasing population. Then you hear people whining both about restrictions on immigration *and* wanting the country not to change.

If you want a more “cosmopolitan” population then you are either in favour of more Birminghams or you are an idiot. Pick one.

I don’t know that I’m favour of the current Birmingham, let alone more of them. There must be a way of accommodating an increasing population without building more Birminghams. Can we build more Milton Keyneses?

Either way, the current high rates of immigration are Conservative Party policy. If people don’t like them, vote out the Conservatives.

Population of MK is 250k, so there need to be two more MKs built every year, just to stand still on housing the population increase. Which means in practice three or four new MKs per year, for the next few years.

A tweet from earlier today (from a source I would trust to have accurate figures) reckons 700,000 immigrants arrived last year.

So it's 3 Milton Keynes a year and 2 of them probably need to be in the South East.

Yes, although 250k are Ukranians, of whom more than 80% are living with families on what’s presumably a temporary basis. There were a couple of hundred thousand from HK as well, which was a one-off but they still need housing. There were also a couple of hundred thousand who left the country last year, so net immigration is closer to 500k.

Well, it is "tens of thousands" as promised by Cameron. Just 50 tens.

I don't know why gammons get sand in the vag over the channel boats. The numbers are inconsequential compared to the tory mass inward migration project.

Its alwaus amusing when the open borders brigade get to a point in the debate where they run out of logical arguments so throw out racist slurs as a way to divert attentiom from their weak position. Positively Trumpian.

Your position would be more honest if you just admitted you dont like immigrants.

Bit of a one-trick pony, aren’t you?

You should meet Horse

He sounds like a wonderful chap, head really screwed on tight. Is there a reason you’re so obsessed with him?

I canter think why..

Just think it’s a bit odd. Maybe best having a pint or something and letting it all go. He’s not here anymore.

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

At least Trump won't be able to argue political bias on the part of the jury in any appeal he might make.

Trump lawyer rejected claim that juror’s political affiliation signified bias
A newly unsealed filing in the E. Jean Carroll case reveals how Trump successfully kept a listener of a far-right podcast on the jury.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/10/trump-lawyer-e-jean-carroll-jurors-00096308
...“A juror’s political affiliation is not grounds for dismissal, even in cases involving a political figure,” said Trump lawyer Joe Tacopina in a May 2 filing that was unsealed by U.S. District Court Judge Lewis Kaplan on Wednesday. Kaplan ultimately sided with Tacopina’s argument, leaving the juror in place.
Tacopina was responding to an April 30 motion by the plaintiff, E. Jean Carroll, to disqualify the juror — identified only as “Juror No. 77.” Carroll’s legal team wanted him disqualified for “inferred bias” based on his acknowledgement that he listened to Pool’s show a few times over the last six months.

“Juror No. 77 has described Pool’s podcast as ‘independent,’ ‘middle,’ and ‘balanced.’ A juror who views Pool’s podcast in that way may subjectively believe that he has no relevant bias, but has just as certainly confirmed that he does,” an attorney for Carroll wrote in the motion. “No person capable of deciding this case fairly and impartially would seek out only Pool’s content, rely on YouTube to promote other content based on Pool’s podcast, and maintain that Pool’s commentary is indeed ‘middle’ and ‘balanced.’”..

LOL, Tim Pool is most definitely not ‘far right’, he’s economically centrist and libertarian, although he thinks that Trump is the best on offer at the moment.

There does however appear to be a co-ordinated smear campaign against him at the moment. His daily podcast gets 300-400k views, and he gets another couple of million views from clips and other shorts.

If someone thinks Trump is the “best on offer”, that strongly suggests their political position is pro-fascism.

Carnyx said:

Dialup said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Dialup said:

I am not professing to say that nationalisation will suddenly make the trains better. I just do not see what we are getting by paying private companies to run the trains.

If they were owned by the government today, they would be exactly the same, as say LNER is, we just don't have the money going abroad. I cannot see how anyone objects to that.

For a patriotic country that apparently wants to take back control, what could be more pro-Britain than that? Why are we so useless France have to run our trains? FRANCE!

Private companies built the railways. Private companies actually invest in new trains and rolling stock rather than relying on massively outdated stuff as it used to be under BR. The worst part of the rail network and the part that causes the most delays is the track and infrastructure - which is in public hands.

The train I use was bought by BR.

Dialup said:

I am not professing to say that nationalisation will suddenly make the trains better. I just do not see what we are getting by paying private companies to run the trains.

If they were owned by the government today, they would be exactly the same, as say LNER is, we just don't have the money going abroad. I cannot see how anyone objects to that.

For a patriotic country that apparently wants to take back control, what could be more pro-Britain than that? Why are we so useless France have to run our trains? FRANCE!

Private companies built the railways. Private companies actually invest in new trains and rolling stock rather than relying on massively outdated stuff as it used to be under BR. The worst part of the rail network and the part that causes the most delays is the track and infrastructure - which is in public hands.

Simply not true. BR was developing and investing in new trains enormously. Diesels, DMUs, 125, 225, electrifrication at far greater speed and value for money than today.

Privatisers were to a great extent living off BR's carcass and picking the meat from it for many years. The private railway companies were still using bloody Pacers (a mistake of BR, it should be said) decades later!


This is simply not true. After the big diesel switch over which was inevitable, BR let the whole rail network rot. Yes they had their flagship intercity 125 programme but that was at the cost of underinvestment in the other 90% of the network. And the rolling stock was old, delapidated and unrelible.

In the mid 1980s under BR there were around 650 million passenger journeys a year. In 2018 just prior to the pandemic there were 1.8 billion passenger journies a year. Almost a 3 fold increase. And railways share of total travel has doubled since privatisation. In spite of this we also have the safest railways in Europe - and far safer than they were prior to privatisation. And punctuality is almost exactly the same as it was pre-privatisation at around 90%.

Pulpstar said:

Dialup said:

So glad I got a 5 year fixed at 1.2%

You'll have to renew at some point though. 2 years of cheap money left for me...

I know and I’m dreading that. Just glad we got the longest fixed we could at the time.

Malmesbury said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

SouthamObserver said:

Sandpit said:

SouthamObserver said:

Sandpit said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

Heathener said:

It is indeed a trap for Starmer, but 'elephant' is hyperbole.

It would be risky but Starmer could usefully point to the utter disaster of Brexit and the loss of key employees in the entertainment industry (where it is disastrous), the NHS (not much better), and food supplies (ditto).

We NEED workers!!!! And you're not going to get a 55 yr old white collar worker out of early retirement to go and pull up potatoes in a muddy Lincolnshire field on a freezing February morning.

But we have already established that migration is at a record high. That is people who have applied legally for leave to live and work here. Probably 500k in the last 12 months. The idea that we need boat people to meet our labour needs rather than the ones we choose for ourselves is a nonsense.

Similarly, the idea that safe legal routes will somehow put the unsafe illegal routes out of business is really a fantasy and simply deflection from the problem.

I am no fan of the Rwanda scheme. It is immoral, expensive and ultimately unworkable. But the arguments that there is an obvious and more humane alternative are even more spurious than the arguments for the scheme itself and that's saying something.

Immigration is at a record high and yet as the holiday season begins every single cafe, pub and restaurant down here in Sidmouth and neighbouring towns and villages has a job vacancies poster in its window. Obviously, asylum seekers are not going to fill those gaps, but they do suggest we still need more labour from somewhere - or or a decision to accept long-term decline in many non-metropolitan areas.

Or perhaps they should think about offering staff more than minimum wage. Hire five people on £12/hr for the restaurant, rather than six people on £10/hour.

Perhaps they should - but good luck running a business on the back of that in a UK seaside town catering to families on a budget. In the old days the problem was solved by having young people from the EU come over for a season, live in relatively crappy accommodation and earn some cash while learning a level of English that would enable them to go home and get a better job. It worked well for all concerned.

It worked well for all concerned, except for the locals who could no longer afford accommodation on minimum wage, and everyone competing for the limited property for sale, as more homes were converted to short-term property lets empty for half the year.

The locals run the cafes, bars and restaurants. More generally, they tend to earn more than minimum wage - hence the vacancies. But I agree that more housebuilding is needed.

The answer for the house building industry will always be more housing because that is where they make their profits.

A better solution would be the return of council housing and the acceptance that market forces are sub-optimal to solve this problem.

The housing shortage is as a result of a deliberate series of policies, which aim limit house building.

Strangely, this results in limited house building.

That is indeed weird. A government policy that actually works? Surely not.

Dialup said:

Pulpstar said:

Dialup said:

So glad I got a 5 year fixed at 1.2%

You'll have to renew at some point though. 2 years of cheap money left for me...

I know and I’m dreading that. Just glad we got the longest fixed we could at the time.

Pay down the principal if you can.

Stuartinromford said:

Andy_JS said:

Prediction: if the polls still show an average Labour lead of 15% or more in the autumn, a lot of Tory MPs will start to talk about a leadership challenge.

Who?

Johnson [has] been weighed and found wanting.

Rude - it's all muscle I'll have you know.

WillG said:

Dialup said:

Sandpit said:

Towerbridge said:

WillG said:

Dura_Ace said:

Sandpit said:

eek said:

Sandpit said:

bondegezou said:

Malmesbury said:

A

Towerbridge said:

glw said:

Heathener said:

It's appalling but I'm probably in a minority. Especially my view that with chronic labour shortages across many sectors the answer to get Britain's economy booming is, er, migration.

We have very high net migration right now. Half a million more people, net, for the last year. That means just to meet the needs of migrants we need to build an entire Birmingham sized city, and all associated infrastructure, every couple of years. We are not coming remotely close to that.

Is there any number of migrants that you would call too many?

Im not a believer in putting set numbers of migrants as a limit. Immigration has immensely benefited this country over the last 50 years. We now have a more cosmopolitan outward looking population.

What if 6 billion people arrived in the U.K. next week?

Everything has limits. Just because the subject makes you uncomfortable, doesn’t make it go away.

I say build a Birmingham each year to cope with the increasing population. Then you hear people whining both about restrictions on immigration *and* wanting the country not to change.

If you want a more “cosmopolitan” population then you are either in favour of more Birminghams or you are an idiot. Pick one.

I don’t know that I’m favour of the current Birmingham, let alone more of them. There must be a way of accommodating an increasing population without building more Birminghams. Can we build more Milton Keyneses?

Either way, the current high rates of immigration are Conservative Party policy. If people don’t like them, vote out the Conservatives.

Population of MK is 250k, so there need to be two more MKs built every year, just to stand still on housing the population increase. Which means in practice three or four new MKs per year, for the next few years.

A tweet from earlier today (from a source I would trust to have accurate figures) reckons 700,000 immigrants arrived last year.

So it's 3 Milton Keynes a year and 2 of them probably need to be in the South East.

Yes, although 250k are Ukranians, of whom more than 80% are living with families on what’s presumably a temporary basis. There were a couple of hundred thousand from HK as well, which was a one-off but they still need housing. There were also a couple of hundred thousand who left the country last year, so net immigration is closer to 500k.

Sandpit said:

eek said:

Sandpit said:

bondegezou said:

Malmesbury said:

A

Towerbridge said:

glw said:

Heathener said:

It's appalling but I'm probably in a minority. Especially my view that with chronic labour shortages across many sectors the answer to get Britain's economy booming is, er, migration.

We have very high net migration right now. Half a million more people, net, for the last year. That means just to meet the needs of migrants we need to build an entire Birmingham sized city, and all associated infrastructure, every couple of years. We are not coming remotely close to that.

Is there any number of migrants that you would call too many?

Im not a believer in putting set numbers of migrants as a limit. Immigration has immensely benefited this country over the last 50 years. We now have a more cosmopolitan outward looking population.

What if 6 billion people arrived in the U.K. next week?

Everything has limits. Just because the subject makes you uncomfortable, doesn’t make it go away.

I say build a Birmingham each year to cope with the increasing population. Then you hear people whining both about restrictions on immigration *and* wanting the country not to change.

If you want a more “cosmopolitan” population then you are either in favour of more Birminghams or you are an idiot. Pick one.

I don’t know that I’m favour of the current Birmingham, let alone more of them. There must be a way of accommodating an increasing population without building more Birminghams. Can we build more Milton Keyneses?

Either way, the current high rates of immigration are Conservative Party policy. If people don’t like them, vote out the Conservatives.

Population of MK is 250k, so there need to be two more MKs built every year, just to stand still on housing the population increase. Which means in practice three or four new MKs per year, for the next few years.

A tweet from earlier today (from a source I would trust to have accurate figures) reckons 700,000 immigrants arrived last year.

So it's 3 Milton Keynes a year and 2 of them probably need to be in the South East.

Yes, although 250k are Ukranians, of whom more than 80% are living with families on what’s presumably a temporary basis. There were a couple of hundred thousand from HK as well, which was a one-off but they still need housing. There were also a couple of hundred thousand who left the country last year, so net immigration is closer to 500k.

Well, it is "tens of thousands" as promised by Cameron. Just 50 tens.

I don't know why gammons get sand in the vag over the channel boats. The numbers are inconsequential compared to the tory mass inward migration project.

Its alwaus amusing when the open borders brigade get to a point in the debate where they run out of logical arguments so throw out racist slurs as a way to divert attentiom from their weak position. Positively Trumpian.

Your position would be more honest if you just admitted you dont like immigrants.

The Ukranian immigrants to the UK have been awesome! Shame they’ll almost all go back to Ukraine, once the Russian army has been sent back to Russia having run out of tanks.

The Polish and Indian immigrants have been supporting this country for decades. They’re now leaving because we don’t value their contribution. Sod Ukraine in this particular instance

Just something obviously untrue.

So they haven’t been supporting this country for decades?

Pulpstar said:

Dialup said:

So glad I got a 5 year fixed at 1.2%

You'll have to renew at some point though. 2 years of cheap money left for me...

3 weeks for my sister.

DavidL said:

Malmesbury said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

SouthamObserver said:

Sandpit said:

SouthamObserver said:

Sandpit said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

Heathener said:

It is indeed a trap for Starmer, but 'elephant' is hyperbole.

It would be risky but Starmer could usefully point to the utter disaster of Brexit and the loss of key employees in the entertainment industry (where it is disastrous), the NHS (not much better), and food supplies (ditto).

We NEED workers!!!! And you're not going to get a 55 yr old white collar worker out of early retirement to go and pull up potatoes in a muddy Lincolnshire field on a freezing February morning.

But we have already established that migration is at a record high. That is people who have applied legally for leave to live and work here. Probably 500k in the last 12 months. The idea that we need boat people to meet our labour needs rather than the ones we choose for ourselves is a nonsense.

Similarly, the idea that safe legal routes will somehow put the unsafe illegal routes out of business is really a fantasy and simply deflection from the problem.

I am no fan of the Rwanda scheme. It is immoral, expensive and ultimately unworkable. But the arguments that there is an obvious and more humane alternative are even more spurious than the arguments for the scheme itself and that's saying something.

Immigration is at a record high and yet as the holiday season begins every single cafe, pub and restaurant down here in Sidmouth and neighbouring towns and villages has a job vacancies poster in its window. Obviously, asylum seekers are not going to fill those gaps, but they do suggest we still need more labour from somewhere - or or a decision to accept long-term decline in many non-metropolitan areas.

Or perhaps they should think about offering staff more than minimum wage. Hire five people on £12/hr for the restaurant, rather than six people on £10/hour.

Perhaps they should - but good luck running a business on the back of that in a UK seaside town catering to families on a budget. In the old days the problem was solved by having young people from the EU come over for a season, live in relatively crappy accommodation and earn some cash while learning a level of English that would enable them to go home and get a better job. It worked well for all concerned.

It worked well for all concerned, except for the locals who could no longer afford accommodation on minimum wage, and everyone competing for the limited property for sale, as more homes were converted to short-term property lets empty for half the year.

The locals run the cafes, bars and restaurants. More generally, they tend to earn more than minimum wage - hence the vacancies. But I agree that more housebuilding is needed.

The answer for the house building industry will always be more housing because that is where they make their profits.

A better solution would be the return of council housing and the acceptance that market forces are sub-optimal to solve this problem.

The housing shortage is as a result of a deliberate series of policies, which aim limit house building.

Strangely, this results in limited house building.

That is indeed weird. A government policy that actually works? Surely not.

On Twitter last week I saw a leaflet from the Tories in Pulpstar’s constituency which was condemning Labour’s plan to build 1,200 homes in the constituency.

Sandpit said:

Towerbridge said:

WillG said:

Dura_Ace said:

Sandpit said:

eek said:

Sandpit said:

bondegezou said:

Malmesbury said:

A

Towerbridge said:

glw said:

Heathener said:

It's appalling but I'm probably in a minority. Especially my view that with chronic labour shortages across many sectors the answer to get Britain's economy booming is, er, migration.

We have very high net migration right now. Half a million more people, net, for the last year. That means just to meet the needs of migrants we need to build an entire Birmingham sized city, and all associated infrastructure, every couple of years. We are not coming remotely close to that.

Is there any number of migrants that you would call too many?

Im not a believer in putting set numbers of migrants as a limit. Immigration has immensely benefited this country over the last 50 years. We now have a more cosmopolitan outward looking population.

What if 6 billion people arrived in the U.K. next week?

Everything has limits. Just because the subject makes you uncomfortable, doesn’t make it go away.

I say build a Birmingham each year to cope with the increasing population. Then you hear people whining both about restrictions on immigration *and* wanting the country not to change.

If you want a more “cosmopolitan” population then you are either in favour of more Birminghams or you are an idiot. Pick one.

I don’t know that I’m favour of the current Birmingham, let alone more of them. There must be a way of accommodating an increasing population without building more Birminghams. Can we build more Milton Keyneses?

Either way, the current high rates of immigration are Conservative Party policy. If people don’t like them, vote out the Conservatives.

Population of MK is 250k, so there need to be two more MKs built every year, just to stand still on housing the population increase. Which means in practice three or four new MKs per year, for the next few years.

A tweet from earlier today (from a source I would trust to have accurate figures) reckons 700,000 immigrants arrived last year.

So it's 3 Milton Keynes a year and 2 of them probably need to be in the South East.

Yes, although 250k are Ukranians, of whom more than 80% are living with families on what’s presumably a temporary basis. There were a couple of hundred thousand from HK as well, which was a one-off but they still need housing. There were also a couple of hundred thousand who left the country last year, so net immigration is closer to 500k.

Sandpit said:

eek said:

Sandpit said:

bondegezou said:

Malmesbury said:

A

Towerbridge said:

glw said:

Heathener said:

It's appalling but I'm probably in a minority. Especially my view that with chronic labour shortages across many sectors the answer to get Britain's economy booming is, er, migration.

We have very high net migration right now. Half a million more people, net, for the last year. That means just to meet the needs of migrants we need to build an entire Birmingham sized city, and all associated infrastructure, every couple of years. We are not coming remotely close to that.

Is there any number of migrants that you would call too many?

Im not a believer in putting set numbers of migrants as a limit. Immigration has immensely benefited this country over the last 50 years. We now have a more cosmopolitan outward looking population.

What if 6 billion people arrived in the U.K. next week?

Everything has limits. Just because the subject makes you uncomfortable, doesn’t make it go away.

I say build a Birmingham each year to cope with the increasing population. Then you hear people whining both about restrictions on immigration *and* wanting the country not to change.

If you want a more “cosmopolitan” population then you are either in favour of more Birminghams or you are an idiot. Pick one.

I don’t know that I’m favour of the current Birmingham, let alone more of them. There must be a way of accommodating an increasing population without building more Birminghams. Can we build more Milton Keyneses?

Either way, the current high rates of immigration are Conservative Party policy. If people don’t like them, vote out the Conservatives.

Population of MK is 250k, so there need to be two more MKs built every year, just to stand still on housing the population increase. Which means in practice three or four new MKs per year, for the next few years.

A tweet from earlier today (from a source I would trust to have accurate figures) reckons 700,000 immigrants arrived last year.

So it's 3 Milton Keynes a year and 2 of them probably need to be in the South East.

Yes, although 250k are Ukranians, of whom more than 80% are living with families on what’s presumably a temporary basis. There were a couple of hundred thousand from HK as well, which was a one-off but they still need housing. There were also a couple of hundred thousand who left the country last year, so net immigration is closer to 500k.

Well, it is "tens of thousands" as promised by Cameron. Just 50 tens.

I don't know why gammons get sand in the vag over the channel boats. The numbers are inconsequential compared to the tory mass inward migration project.

Its alwaus amusing when the open borders brigade get to a point in the debate where they run out of logical arguments so throw out racist slurs as a way to divert attentiom from their weak position. Positively Trumpian.

Your position would be more honest if you just admitted you dont like immigrants.

The Ukranian immigrants to the UK have been awesome! Shame they’ll almost all go back to Ukraine, once the Russian army has been sent back to Russia having run out of tanks.

Thank goodness the terrorists that Suella said could be seeded among the Ukranian refugees didn’t make it here.

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Towerbridge said:

Sandpit said:

Towerbridge said:

WillG said:

Dura_Ace said:

Sandpit said:

eek said:

Sandpit said:

bondegezou said:

Malmesbury said:

A

Towerbridge said:

glw said:

Heathener said:

It's appalling but I'm probably in a minority. Especially my view that with chronic labour shortages across many sectors the answer to get Britain's economy booming is, er, migration.

We have very high net migration right now. Half a million more people, net, for the last year. That means just to meet the needs of migrants we need to build an entire Birmingham sized city, and all associated infrastructure, every couple of years. We are not coming remotely close to that.

Is there any number of migrants that you would call too many?

Im not a believer in putting set numbers of migrants as a limit. Immigration has immensely benefited this country over the last 50 years. We now have a more cosmopolitan outward looking population.

What if 6 billion people arrived in the U.K. next week?

Everything has limits. Just because the subject makes you uncomfortable, doesn’t make it go away.

I say build a Birmingham each year to cope with the increasing population. Then you hear people whining both about restrictions on immigration *and* wanting the country not to change.

If you want a more “cosmopolitan” population then you are either in favour of more Birminghams or you are an idiot. Pick one.

I don’t know that I’m favour of the current Birmingham, let alone more of them. There must be a way of accommodating an increasing population without building more Birminghams. Can we build more Milton Keyneses?

Either way, the current high rates of immigration are Conservative Party policy. If people don’t like them, vote out the Conservatives.

Population of MK is 250k, so there need to be two more MKs built every year, just to stand still on housing the population increase. Which means in practice three or four new MKs per year, for the next few years.

A tweet from earlier today (from a source I would trust to have accurate figures) reckons 700,000 immigrants arrived last year.

So it's 3 Milton Keynes a year and 2 of them probably need to be in the South East.

Yes, although 250k are Ukranians, of whom more than 80% are living with families on what’s presumably a temporary basis. There were a couple of hundred thousand from HK as well, which was a one-off but they still need housing. There were also a couple of hundred thousand who left the country last year, so net immigration is closer to 500k.

Sandpit said:

eek said:

Sandpit said:

bondegezou said:

Malmesbury said:

A

Towerbridge said:

glw said:

Heathener said:

It's appalling but I'm probably in a minority. Especially my view that with chronic labour shortages across many sectors the answer to get Britain's economy booming is, er, migration.

We have very high net migration right now. Half a million more people, net, for the last year. That means just to meet the needs of migrants we need to build an entire Birmingham sized city, and all associated infrastructure, every couple of years. We are not coming remotely close to that.

Is there any number of migrants that you would call too many?

Im not a believer in putting set numbers of migrants as a limit. Immigration has immensely benefited this country over the last 50 years. We now have a more cosmopolitan outward looking population.

What if 6 billion people arrived in the U.K. next week?

Everything has limits. Just because the subject makes you uncomfortable, doesn’t make it go away.

I say build a Birmingham each year to cope with the increasing population. Then you hear people whining both about restrictions on immigration *and* wanting the country not to change.

If you want a more “cosmopolitan” population then you are either in favour of more Birminghams or you are an idiot. Pick one.

I don’t know that I’m favour of the current Birmingham, let alone more of them. There must be a way of accommodating an increasing population without building more Birminghams. Can we build more Milton Keyneses?

Either way, the current high rates of immigration are Conservative Party policy. If people don’t like them, vote out the Conservatives.

Population of MK is 250k, so there need to be two more MKs built every year, just to stand still on housing the population increase. Which means in practice three or four new MKs per year, for the next few years.

A tweet from earlier today (from a source I would trust to have accurate figures) reckons 700,000 immigrants arrived last year.

So it's 3 Milton Keynes a year and 2 of them probably need to be in the South East.

Yes, although 250k are Ukranians, of whom more than 80% are living with families on what’s presumably a temporary basis. There were a couple of hundred thousand from HK as well, which was a one-off but they still need housing. There were also a couple of hundred thousand who left the country last year, so net immigration is closer to 500k.

Well, it is "tens of thousands" as promised by Cameron. Just 50 tens.

I don't know why gammons get sand in the vag over the channel boats. The numbers are inconsequential compared to the tory mass inward migration project.

Its alwaus amusing when the open borders brigade get to a point in the debate where they run out of logical arguments so throw out racist slurs as a way to divert attentiom from their weak position. Positively Trumpian.

Your position would be more honest if you just admitted you dont like immigrants.

The Ukranian immigrants to the UK have been awesome! Shame they’ll almost all go back to Ukraine, once the Russian army has been sent back to Russia having run out of tanks.

Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine #Zaluzhnyi, and top commander #Syrskyi rumoured to have been killed recently in Russian missile strikes.

Thats not good news.

https://twitter.com/Russia_Truth/status/1656613605243068416?s=20

I think you need to be fairly careful about trusting a tweet by someone who posts as, "Russia Truth (autonomous pro-Kremlin infowarrior)".

Here's a tweet countering that claim:
https://twitter.com/StarskyUA/status/1656513854916947968

Perhaps they have hot Zaluzhny. But given the loose connection between pro-Russian media and the truth in the past, I'd doubt it.

Incidentally, it looks as though Zelensky's saying the offensive won't go ahead yet.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65550427
Which may, of course, mean it's already ongoing. This really is turning out to be an information war.

edmundintokyo said:

Andy_JS said:

"Adrian Hilton💎
@Adrian_Hilton

Fujitsu staff had ‘unrestricted and unauditable’ remote access to Post Office branch systems? Good grief. So somebody was lying in the High Court? I ask again, why is Paula Vennells still in Holy Orders with a CBE?

#PostOfficeScandal"
https://twitter.com/Adrian_Hilton/status/1656609940826476545

We just had a nice Fujitsu cock-up in Japan. They were contracted to build a system where you could print your government personal record at convenience stores. They made it save the record of the data it had to print in a file identified by the time. As soon as it started being used enough that two people in different convenient stores were using the system at the same time, the system started randomly printing out other people's data.

One-second D&T stamp, rather than 1ms, and with no collision-avoidance in the database? Whoops. Didn’t we all learn this sh!t several decades ago, to use a TX number?